Ram Kumar (since deceased) through LRs and Others (since deceased) through LRs and Others v. State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others
Case Details
RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -1- - OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA-786-1998 (O&M) RSA Reserved on Reserved on:-13.10.2025 Date of Decision : 14.10.2025 Date of Decision : Ram Kumar (since deceased) through LRs and Others (since deceased) through LRs and Others ....Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. S.N.Chopra, Advocate with Present: Mr. S.N.Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2 – State for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Pavan Malik, Advocate Mr. Pavan Malik, Advocate or respondents No.3 to 5 and 7. for respondents No.3 to 5 and 7. Respondent No.6 proceeded against ex-parte Respondent No.6 proceeded against Respondent No.6 proceeded against Vide order dated 11.08.1998. Vide order dated 11.08.1998. Respondents No.8 to 10 proceeded against ex-parte Respondents No.8 to 10 proceeded against Respondents No.8 to 10 proceeded against vide order dated 25.09.2025 vide order dated -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants– The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1998 passed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1998 passed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1998 passed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1998 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs 24.03.1993 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs 24.03.1993 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs 24.03.1993 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs was reversed. 2. appellants, namely Nihal Singh, Ram Kumar, Chhotu The plaintiffs–appellants, namely Nihal Singh, Ram Kumar, Chhotu appellants, namely Nihal Singh, Ram Kumar, Chhotu The plaintiffs ed a suit against the defendant No.1- ed a suit against the defendant No.1 Ram and Munshi Ram, sons of Narain, filed a suit against the defendant No.1 Ram and Munshi Ram, sons of na, State of Haryana, State of Harya through through SDO the Collector, Sirsa, defendant No.2-SDO the Collector, Sirsa, (Civil)/Allotment Authority, Sirsa and private respondents/ defendant no. 3 to 7. (Civil)/Allotment Authority, Sirsa and private respondents/ defendant no. 3 to 7. (Civil)/Allotment Authority, Sirsa and private respondents/ defendant no. 3 to 7. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -2- - 3. The suit was one for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants The suit was one for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants The suit was one for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants The suit was one for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or resettling from dispossessing the plaintiffs or resettling tenants in respect of the suit land tenants in respect of the suit land measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, without following due process of law as prescribed measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, without following due process of law as prescribed measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, without following due process of law as prescribed measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, without following due process of law as prescribed under Sections 14(1), 16(2) and 16(5) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings under Sections 14(1), 16(2) and 16(5) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings under Sections 14(1), 16(2) and 16(5) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings under Sections 14(1), 16(2) and 16(5) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 4. laintiffs also sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the The plaintiffs also sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the laintiffs also sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the The p orders dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the orders dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the orders dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the orders dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the Allotment Authority, Sirsa, the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Allotment Authority, Sirsa, the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Allotment Authority, Sirsa, the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Allotment Authority, Sirsa, the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar sa), were illegal, void, and not binding on their rights. Division, Hisar (Camp at Sirsa), were illegal, void, and not binding on their rights. sa), were illegal, void, and not binding on their rights. Division, Hisar (Camp at Sir Brief Facts 5.
Legal Reasoning
The plaintiffs pleaded that they are the recorded owners of the suit The plaintiffs pleaded that they are the recorded owners of the suit The plaintiffs pleaded that they are the recorded owners of the suit The plaintiffs pleaded that they are the recorded owners of the suit land to the extent of 316/495 shares, but they were neither heard nor summoned land to the extent of 316/495 shares, but they were neither heard nor summoned land to the extent of 316/495 shares, but they were neither heard nor summoned land to the extent of 316/495 shares, but they were neither heard nor summoned t order dated 17.01.1984 by the Allotment before the passing of the allotment order dated 17.01.1984 by the Allotment t order dated 17.01.1984 by the Allotment before the passing of the allotmen In that order, the defendant No.2 assessed the value of Authority (defendant No.2). In that order, the defendant No.2 assessed the value of In that order, the defendant No.2 assessed the value of Authority (defendant No.2). ₹5,676.45 as per Annexure ‘Ka’. However, the share of the suit land to the tune of ₹5,676.45 as per Annexure ‘Ka’. However, the share of ₹5,676.45 as per Annexure ‘Ka’. However, the share of the suit land to the tune of nstead of 316 shares, as is clear the plaintiffs was wrongly shown as 75 shares instead of 316 shares, as is clear the plaintiffs was wrongly shown as 75 shares i the plaintiffs was wrongly shown as 75 shares i It was further alleged that the value of from the Jamabandi for the year 1984–85. It was further alleged that the value of It was further alleged that the value of from the Jamabandi for the year 1984 the suit land was assessed in the absence and at the back of the plaintiffs, without the suit land was assessed in the absence and at the back of the plaintiffs, without the suit land was assessed in the absence and at the back of the plaintiffs, without the suit land was assessed in the absence and at the back of the plaintiffs, without der Section 16(2) of the issuing the mandatory notice in Form VII as required under Section 16(2) of the issuing the mandatory notice in Form VII as required un issuing the mandatory notice in Form VII as required un Act. Hence, the said order was claimed to be illegal, void, and not binding upon Act. Hence, the said order was claimed to be illegal, void, and not binding upon Act. Hence, the said order was claimed to be illegal, void, and not binding upon Act. Hence, the said order was claimed to be illegal, void, and not binding upon Similarly, orders dated 15.05.1984 passed by the Collector, Sirsa, and their rights. Similarly, orders dated 15.05.1984 passed by the Collector, Sirsa, and Similarly, orders dated 15.05.1984 passed by the Collector, Sirsa, and Similarly, orders dated 15.05.1984 passed by the Collector, Sirsa, and p at Sirsa) in 04.06.1987 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (Camp at Sirsa) in 04.06.1987 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (Cam 04.06.1987 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (Cam appeal and revision respectively, were also challenged on identical grounds of appeal and revision respectively, were also challenged on identical grounds of appeal and revision respectively, were also challenged on identical grounds of appeal and revision respectively, were also challenged on identical grounds of being without jurisdiction, against law and facts, and violative of principles of being without jurisdiction, against law and facts, and violative of principles of being without jurisdiction, against law and facts, and violative of principles of being without jurisdiction, against law and facts, and violative of principles of nts on It was further alleged that the defendants were resettling tenants on It was further alleged that the defendants were resettling tena natural justice. It was further alleged that the defendants were resettling tena TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -3- - the basis of the impugned orders and were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs the basis of the impugned orders and were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs the basis of the impugned orders and were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs the basis of the impugned orders and were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land in dispute. Despite repeated requests not to proceed, the defendants from the land in dispute. Despite repeated requests not to proceed, the defendants from the land in dispute. Despite repeated requests not to proceed, the defendants from the land in dispute. Despite repeated requests not to proceed, the defendants remained adamant, which constrained the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for remained adamant, which constrained the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for remained adamant, which constrained the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for remained adamant, which constrained the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for redressal. 6. Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of Haryana and SDO (Civil)/Allotment Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of Haryana and SDO (Civil)/Allotment Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of Haryana and SDO (Civil)/Allotment Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of Haryana and SDO (Civil)/Allotment Authority, Sirsa) appeared and filed written statement taking several preliminary Authority, Sirsa) appeared and filed written statement taking several preliminar Authority, Sirsa) appeared and filed written statement taking several preliminar Authority, Sirsa) appeared and filed written statement taking several preliminar he Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in objections, inter alia, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in he Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in objections, inter alia, that t view of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and view of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and view of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and view of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and Section 25 of the Punjab Act, the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 Section 25 of the Punjab Act, the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 Section 25 of the Punjab Act, the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 Section 25 of the Punjab Act, the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. The suit had been filed without impleading the allottees as necessary parties. CPC. The suit had been filed without impleading the allottees as necessary parties. CPC. The suit had been filed without impleading the allottees as necessary parties. CPC. The suit had been filed without impleading the allottees as necessary parties. had not approached the Court with clean hands, and the suit was not The plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands, and the suit was not had not approached the Court with clean hands, and the suit was not had not approached the Court with clean hands, and the suit was not On merits, it was averred that the suit land was maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was averred that the suit land was On merits, it was averred that the suit land was maintainable in the present form declared surplus by the order of collector dated 07.03.1983. The land thus vested in declared surplus by the order of collector dated 07.03.1983. The land thus vested in declared surplus by the order of collector dated 07.03.1983. The land thus vested in declared surplus by the order of collector dated 07.03.1983. The land thus vested in the allotment of the same was duly made on 17.01.1984 to the Government, and the allotment of the same was duly made on 17.01.1984 to the allotment of the same was duly made on 17.01.1984 to the Government, and eligible persons according to law. It was stated that the allotment proceedings were eligible persons according to law. It was stated that the allotment proceedings were eligible persons according to law. It was stated that the allotment proceedings were eligible persons according to law. It was stated that the allotment proceedings were conducted after hearing all concerned persons and that the plaintiffs had no conducted after hearing all concerned persons and that the plaintiffs had no conducted after hearing all concerned persons and that the plaintiffs had no conducted after hearing all concerned persons and that the plaintiffs had no concern with the land which was declared surplus in the hands of Har Lal. concern with the land which was decla It was red surplus in the hands of Har Lal. It was further stated that possession of the land had already been delivered to the allottees further stated that possession of the land had already been delivered to the allottees further stated that possession of the land had already been delivered to the allottees further stated that possession of the land had already been delivered to the allottees vide Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 270, 273, 274, 277, and 278, dated 10.05.1984, vide Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 270, 273, 274, 277, and 278, dated 10.05.1984, vide Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 270, 273, 274, 277, and 278, dated 10.05.1984, vide Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 270, 273, 274, 277, and 278, dated 10.05.1984, 11.05.1984, and 11.07.1984, respectively. The compe 11.05.1984, and 11.07.1984 nsation had been determined . The compensation had been determined on the basis of Mutation No.316 dated 25.11.1982, wherein the share of the on the basis of Mutation No.316 dated 25.11.1982, wherein the share of the on the basis of Mutation No.316 dated 25.11.1982, wherein the share of the on the basis of Mutation No.316 dated 25.11.1982, wherein the share of the plaintiffs was shown as 75/495, not 316/495. Hence, the provisions of Section plaintiffs was shown as 75/495, not 316/495. Hence, the provisions of Section plaintiffs was shown as 75/495, not 316/495. Hence, the provisions of Section plaintiffs was shown as 75/495, not 316/495. Hence, the provisions of Section fectly 16(2) of the Act were fully complied with, and the impugned orders were perfectly 16(2) of the Act were fully complied with, and the impugned orders were per 16(2) of the Act were fully complied with, and the impugned orders were per It was also contended that there was no legal and binding on the plaintiffs. It was also contended that there was no It was also contended that there was no legal and binding on the plaintiffs. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -4- - necessity to issue notice under Section 14(1) of the Act because the father of the necessity to issue notice under Section 14(1) of the Act because the father of the necessity to issue notice under Section 14(1) of the Act because the father of the necessity to issue notice under Section 14(1) of the Act because the father of the plaintiffs himself had surrendered the surplus land into the pool. plaintiffs himself had surrendered the surplus land into the pool. plaintiffs himself had surrendered the surplus land into the pool. 7. Defendants No.3 to 7 i.e private respondents Defendants No.3 to on the other hand private respondents, on the other hand contended that the suit was not maintainable. T contended that the suit was not maintainable. he plaintiffs had no locus standi to The plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit, and the mandatory provisions of the Act had been fully file the present suit, and the mandatory provisions of the Act had been fully file the present suit, and the mandatory provisions of the Act had been fully file the present suit, and the mandatory provisions of the Act had been fully hem. They prayed for dismissal of complied with while allotting the suit land to them. They prayed for dismissal of complied with while allotting the suit land to t complied with while allotting the suit land to t the Allotment the suit with costs, contending that all three revenue authorities i.e the Allotment the suit with costs, contending that all three revenue authorities the suit with costs, contending that all three revenue authorities Authority, Collector, and Commissioner had decided the matter strictly in Authority, Collector, and Commissioner had decided the matter strictly in Authority, Collector, and Commissioner had decided the matter strictly in Authority, Collector, and Commissioner had decided the matter strictly in accordance with law. accordance with law. 8. ffs, reiterating the stand taken in Replications were filed by the plaintiffs, reiterating the stand taken in Replications were filed by the plainti Replications were filed by the plainti the plaint and denying the allegations raised in the written statements. the plaint and denying the allegations raised in the written statements. the plaint and denying the allegations raised in the written statements. the plaint and denying the allegations raised in the written statements. 9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication: framed the following issues for adjudication: 1. dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and Whether impugned orders dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the Allotment Authority, Collector, 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the Allotment Authority, Collector, 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the Allotment Authority, Collector, 04.06.1987, passed respectively by the Allotment Authority, Collector, and Commissioner, are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to be set aside and Commissioner, are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to be set aside and Commissioner, are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to be set aside and Commissioner, are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the Civil Court has no ju risdiction to try the present Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD CPC? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -5- - 6. the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands; if so, to what effect? OPD hands; if so, to what effect? OPD 7. Relief. 10. In support of their case, the plaintiffs produced oral as well as In support of their case, the plaintiffs produced oral as well as In support of their case, the plaintiffs produced oral as well as In support of their case, the plaintiffs produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The following documents were tendered on record: documentary evidence. The following documents were tendered on record: documentary evidence. The following documents were tendered on record: Ex. P1 – Jamabandi for the year 1984 Ex. P1 Jamabandi for the year 1984–85; Ex. P2 Ex. P2 – Jamabandi for the year 1974 Jamabandi for the year 1974–75; Copy of order dated 04.06.1987; Ex. P3 – Copy of order dated 04.06.1987; Ex. P3 Copy of order dated 15.05.1984; Ex. P4 – Copy of order dated 15.05.1984; Ex. P4 Copy of order dated 17.01.1984. Ex. P5 – Copy of order dated 17.01.1984. Ex. P5 11. nce, produced the following The defendants, besides leading oral evidence, produced the following The defendants, besides leading oral evide The defendants, besides leading oral evide documentary evidence: documentary evidence: Copy of order dated 09.10.1980 vide which land was Ex. D1 – Copy of order dated 09.10.1980 vide which land was Copy of order dated 09.10.1980 vide which land was Ex. D1 declared surplus. declared surplus. Copy of order of collector, Sirsa dated 07.03.1983 in appeal Ex. D2 – Copy of order of collector, Sirsa dated 07.03.1983 in appeal Copy of order of collector, Sirsa dated 07.03.1983 in appeal Ex. D2 filed by Narain, father of plaintiff. filed by by father of plaintiff dated 28.02.1983. Ex. D3 – Application by father of plaintiff dated 28.02.1983. Ex. D3 Mutation no. 316 showing share of plaintiffs as 75/495 dated Ex. D4 – Mutation no. 316 showing share of plaintiffs as 75/495 dated Mutation no. 316 showing share of plaintiffs as 75/495 dated Ex. D4 07.11.1982. 07.11.1982. Copy of order of allotment dated 17.01.1984 by allotment Ex. D5 – Copy of order of allotment dated 17.01.1984 by allotment Copy of order of allotment dated 17.01.1984 by allotment Ex. D5 authority. authority. Copies of Rapat Roznamchas. Ex. D6 to Ex. D9 – Copies of Rapat Roznamchas. Ex. D6 to Ex. D9 Further related documents concerning Ex. D10 and Ex. D11 – Further related documents concerning Further related documents concerning Ex. D10 possession and allotment. possession and allotment. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -6- - Copy of order dated 15.05.1984, by Collector, Sirsa against Ex. D12 – Copy of order dated 15.05.1984, by Collector, Sirsa against Copy of order dated 15.05.1984, by Collector, Sirsa against Ex. D12 order dated 17.01.1984 in appeal filed order dated 17.01.1984 in appeal filed by sons of Narain; Ex. D13 – Copy of order dated 04.06.1987 by commiss Ex. D13 ioner, Hisar Copy of order dated 04.06.1987 by commissioner, Hisar against order dated 15.05.1984. against order dated 15.05.1984. Findings of the Learned Trial Court Findings of the Learned Trial Court 12. The learned Trial Court, while deciding Issue No. The learned Trial Court, while deciding Issue No.1, observed that t observed that the plaintiffs examined PW1, who categorically deposed that they were owners in plaintiffs examined PW1, who categorically deposed that they were owners in plaintiffs examined PW1, who categorically deposed that they were owners in plaintiffs examined PW1, who categorically deposed that they were owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 316/495 shares and that before the possession of the suit land to the extent of 316/495 shares and that before the possession of the suit land to the extent of 316/495 shares and that before the possession of the suit land to the extent of 316/495 shares and that before the allotment of the surplus land vide order dated 17.01.1984, no notice or opportunity allotment of the surplus land vide order dated 17.01.1984, no notice or opportunity allotment of the surplus land vide order dated 17.01.1984, no notice or opportunity allotment of the surplus land vide order dated 17.01.1984, no notice or opportunity s given to them by the authorities concerned. It was further stated of hearing was given to them by the authorities concerned. It was further stated s given to them by the authorities concerned. It was further stated s given to them by the authorities concerned. It was further stated that the allotment proceedings were undertaken without any partition of the land that the allotment proceedings were undertaken without any partition of the land that the allotment proceedings were undertaken without any partition of the land that the allotment proceedings were undertaken without any partition of the land and, therefore, the orders passed by the Allotment Authority, Collector, Sirsa, and and, therefore, the orders passed by the Allotment Authority, Collector, Sirsa, and and, therefore, the orders passed by the Allotment Authority, Collector, Sirsa, and and, therefore, the orders passed by the Allotment Authority, Collector, Sirsa, and ision, were illegal and not binding on their rights. On the Commissioner, Hisar Division, were illegal and not binding on their rights. On the ision, were illegal and not binding on their rights. On the Commissioner, Hisar Div other hand, DW1, Mahla Singh, Patwari, appeared for the defendants and deposed other hand, DW1, Mahla Singh, Patwari, appeared for the defendants and deposed other hand, DW1, Mahla Singh, Patwari, appeared for the defendants and deposed other hand, DW1, Mahla Singh, Patwari, appeared for the defendants and deposed vide order dated that the suit land had been declared surplus in the hands of Narain vide order dated that the suit land had been declared surplus in the hands of that the suit land had been declared surplus in the hands of was allowed to select his reserved area by 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1) and that Narain was allowed to select his reserved area by was allowed to select his reserved area by 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1) and that order of the Collector dated 07.03.1983 (Ex.D2). The record regarding selection of order of the Collector dated 07.03.1983 (Ex.D2). The record regarding selection of order of the Collector dated 07.03.1983 (Ex.D2). The record regarding selection of order of the Collector dated 07.03.1983 (Ex.D2). The record regarding selection of the surplus land was placed on file as Ex.D3, and according to the witness, once the surplus land was placed on file as Ex.D3, and according to the witness, once the surplus land was placed on file as Ex.D3, and according to the witness, once the surplus land was placed on file as Ex.D3, and according to the witness, once had no concern with the same, their the land was declared surplus, the plaintiffs had no concern with the same, their had no concern with the same, their the land was declared surplus, the plaintiffs share being only 75/495 and not 316/495, as reflected in Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4). share being only 75/495 and not 316/495, as reflected in Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4). share being only 75/495 and not 316/495, as reflected in Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4). share being only 75/495 and not 316/495, as reflected in Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4). It was further stated that the allotment had been made after due proclamation i.e. It was further stated that the allotment had been made after due proclamation i.e. It was further stated that the allotment had been made after due proclamation i.e. It was further stated that the allotment had been made after due proclamation i.e. the impugned orders Munadi, proved by Rapat Roznamcha Ex.D11, and that all the impugned orders Munadi, proved by Rapat Roznamcha Ex.D11, and that all Munadi, proved by Rapat Roznamcha Ex.D11, and that all Learned trial Court further observed that although the Learned trial Court further observed that although t were valid and binding. Learned trial Court further observed that although t were valid and binding. learned Government Pleader argued that as notice had been given through Munadi, learned Government Pleader argued that as notice had been given through Munadi, learned Government Pleader argued that as notice had been given through Munadi, learned Government Pleader argued that as notice had been given through Munadi, the plea of non-service of notice was untenable the plea of non is not service of notice was untenable, but this contention is not TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -7- - acceptable as the plaintiffs had specifically denied having received any notice and the plaintiffs had specifically denied having received any notice and plaintiffs had specifically denied having received any notice and that even if such a Munadi was issued, the same could not be treated as a valid that even if such a Munadi was issued, the same could not be treated as a valid that even if such a Munadi was issued, the same could not be treated as a valid that even if such a Munadi was issued, the same could not be treated as a valid notice under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. notice under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. notice under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. notice under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. duced the said statutory provision and observed that it was The Court reproduced the said statutory provision and observed that it was duced the said statutory provision and observed that it was The Court repro mandatory on the part of the competent authority to give a clear fifteen days’ mandatory on the part of the competent authority to give a clear fifteen days’ mandatory on the part of the competent authority to give a clear fifteen days’ mandatory on the part of the competent authority to give a clear fifteen days’ notice in Form VII appended to the Act before assessing the value of the land. notice in Form VII appended to the Act before assessing the value of the land. notice in Form VII appended to the Act before assessing the value of the land. notice in Form VII appended to the Act before assessing the value of the land. de in the absence and behind the back of the Thus, the fixation of valuation was made in the absence and behind the back of the de in the absence and behind the back of the Thus, the fixation of valuation was ma binding. plaintiffs, rendering the order of the Allotment Authority void and non-binding. plaintiffs, rendering the order of the Allotment Authority void and non plaintiffs, rendering the order of the Allotment Authority void and non 85, the Court found that the plaintiffs were From the Jamabandi for the year 1984–85, the Court found that the plaintiffs were 85, the Court found that the plaintiffs were From the Jamabandi for the year 1984 reas Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) indeed recorded as owners of 316/495 shares, whereas Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) indeed recorded as owners of 316/495 shares, whe indeed recorded as owners of 316/495 shares, whe reflected their ownership only to the extent of 75/495 shares, thereby showing that reflected their ownership only to the extent of 75/495 shares, thereby showing that reflected their ownership only to the extent of 75/495 shares, thereby showing that reflected their ownership only to the extent of 75/495 shares, thereby showing that the Allotment Authority had failed to consider the correct ownership and the Allotment Authority had failed to consider the correct ownership and the Allotment Authority had failed to consider the correct ownership and the Allotment Authority had failed to consider the correct ownership and ire process, compensation entitlement of the plaintiffs due to non-hearing. The entire process, compensation entitlement of the plaintiffs due to non compensation entitlement of the plaintiffs due to non therefore, stood vitiated. The Trial Court concluded that the orders of the Allotment therefore, stood vitiated. The Trial Court concluded that the orders of the Allotment therefore, stood vitiated. The Trial Court concluded that the orders of the Allotment therefore, stood vitiated. The Trial Court concluded that the orders of the Allotment Authority, Collector, and Commissioner were not sustainable in law and liable to Authority, Collector, and Commissioner were not sustainable in law and liable to Authority, Collector, and Commissioner were not sustainable in law and liable to Authority, Collector, and Commissioner were not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside as illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. be set aside as illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintif be set aside as illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintif 13. While deciding issue No. 2, relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, While deciding issue No. 2, relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, While deciding issue No. 2, relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, While deciding issue No. 2, relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the learned Trial Court held that though Section 26 of the Act bars the jurisdiction the learned Trial Court held that though Section 26 of the Act bars the jurisdiction the learned Trial Court held that though Section 26 of the Act bars the jurisdiction the learned Trial Court held that though Section 26 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, such bar cannot apply where the authorities have acted in excess of the Civil Court, such bar cannot apply where the authorities have acted in excess of the Civil Court, such bar cannot apply where the authorities have acted in excess of the Civil Court, such bar cannot apply where the authorities have acted in excess urisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute. Since the of jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute. Since the urisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute. Since the urisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute. Since the authorities had failed to serve statutory notice and had assessed valuation without authorities had failed to serve statutory notice and had assessed valuation without authorities had failed to serve statutory notice and had assessed valuation without authorities had failed to serve statutory notice and had assessed valuation without hearing the plaintiffs, their actions were without jurisdiction, and therefore, the hearing the plaintiffs, their actions were without jurisdiction, and therefore, the hearing the plaintiffs, their actions were without jurisdiction, and therefore, the hearing the plaintiffs, their actions were without jurisdiction, and therefore, the t was competent to entertain the suit. The Court again referred to Vinod Civil Court was competent to entertain the suit. The Court again referred to Vinod t was competent to entertain the suit. The Court again referred to Vinod t was competent to entertain the suit. The Court again referred to Vinod Kumar’s case to reinforce that where statutory procedure or natural justice is Kumar’s case to reinforce that where statutory procedure or natural justice is Kumar’s case to reinforce that where statutory procedure or natural justice is Kumar’s case to reinforce that where statutory procedure or natural justice is violated, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to set aside such orders remains intact. violated, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to set aside such orders remains intact. violated, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to set aside such orders remains intact. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -8- - 14. sues were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and The remaining issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and sues were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and The remaining is against the defendants. Consequently, the suit was decreed vide judgment and against the defendants. Consequently, the suit was decreed vide judgment and against the defendants. Consequently, the suit was decreed vide judgment and against the defendants. Consequently, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993, declaring that the impugned orders dated 17.01.1984, decree dated 24.03.1993, declaring that the impugned orders dated 17.01.1984, decree dated 24.03.1993, declaring that the impugned orders dated 17.01.1984, decree dated 24.03.1993, declaring that the impugned orders dated 17.01.1984, tment Authority, Collector, and 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed by the Allotment Authority, Collector, and 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed by the Allo 15.05.1984, and 04.06.1987, passed by the Allo Commissioner respectively, were illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the Commissioner respectively, were illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the Commissioner respectively, were illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the Commissioner respectively, were illegal, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and were accordingly set aside. The defendants were restrained from plaintiffs and were accordingly set aside. The defendants were restrained from plaintiffs and were accordingly set aside. The defendants were restrained from plaintiffs and were accordingly set aside. The defendants were restrained from lying with the allotting the land or resettling tenants thereon without complying with the allotting the land or resettling tenants thereon without comp allotting the land or resettling tenants thereon without comp provisions of Sections 14 and 16 of the Act, meaning thereby that any fresh provisions of Sections 14 and 16 of the Act, meaning thereby that any fresh provisions of Sections 14 and 16 of the Act, meaning thereby that any fresh provisions of Sections 14 and 16 of the Act, meaning thereby that any fresh allotment could only be made in due process of law. The Court also recorded a allotment could only be made in due process of law. The Court also recorded a allotment could only be made in due process of law. The Court also recorded a allotment could only be made in due process of law. The Court also recorded a finding that possession of the suit land remained with the plaintiffs, as their finding that possession of the suit land remained with the plaintiffs, as their finding that possession of the suit land remained with the plaintiffs, as their finding that possession of the suit land remained with the plaintiffs, as their ny to that effect was unrebutted and DW1 had been unable to specify who testimony to that effect was unrebutted and DW1 had been unable to specify who ny to that effect was unrebutted and DW1 had been unable to specify who ny to that effect was unrebutted and DW1 had been unable to specify who was in actual possession. The Rapat Roznamchas (Ex.D6 to Ex.D10) relied upon was in actual possession. The Rapat Roznamchas (Ex.D6 to Ex.D10) relied upon was in actual possession. The Rapat Roznamchas (Ex.D6 to Ex.D10) relied upon was in actual possession. The Rapat Roznamchas (Ex.D6 to Ex.D10) relied upon by the defendants were found to be mere paper transactions, not evidencing actual by the defendants were found to be mere paper transactions, not evidencing actual by the defendants were found to be mere paper transactions, not evidencing actual by the defendants were found to be mere paper transactions, not evidencing actual n these findings, the suit was decreed with costs in favour delivery of possession. On these findings, the suit was decreed with costs in favour n these findings, the suit was decreed with costs in favour delivery of possession. O of the plaintiffs. of the plaintiffs. 15. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, an appeal was passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, an appeal was passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, an appeal was passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, an appeal was State of Haryana through the Collector and SDO preferred by the defendants–State of Haryana through the Collector and SDO State of Haryana through the Collector and SDO preferred by the (Civil) having the powers of the Allotment Authority, arraying the private (Civil) having the powers of the Allotment Authority, arraying the private (Civil) having the powers of the Allotment Authority, arraying the private (Civil) having the powers of the Allotment Authority, arraying the private defendants as proforma respondents defendants as proforma respondents Findings of the Learned Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Learned Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Learned Lower Appellate Court 16.
Legal Reasoning
ter hearing learned counsel for The learned Lower Appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel for The learned Lower Appellate Court, af The learned Lower Appellate Court, af the parties and examining the record, proceeded to reappraise the findings recorded the parties and examining the record, proceeded to reappraise the findings recorded the parties and examining the record, proceeded to reappraise the findings recorded the parties and examining the record, proceeded to reappraise the findings recorded by the Trial Court. At the very outset, the learned Government Pleader contended by the Trial Court. At the very outset, the learned Government Pleader contended by the Trial Court. At the very outset, the learned Government Pleader contended by the Trial Court. At the very outset, the learned Government Pleader contended that the Trial Court had completely ignored a material aspe that the Trial Court had completely ignore namely, d a material aspect of the case namely, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -9- - , before the prescribed the consent given by the father of the plaintiffs, Narain, before the prescribed the consent given by the father of the plaintiffs, the consent given by the father of the plaintiffs, son of Ramjas had, on authority. The Lower Appellate Court noticed that Narain son of Ramjas had, on authority. The Lower Appellate Court noticed that authority. The Lower Appellate Court noticed that 28.02.1983 (Ex 3) , moved an application before the Prescribed Authority, 3) , moved an application before the Prescribed Authorit Ex.D-3) , moved an application before the Prescribed Authorit Surplus Area, Sirsa, voluntarily declaring his surplus land and expressing consent Surplus Area, Sirsa, voluntarily declaring his surplus land and expressing consent Surplus Area, Sirsa, voluntarily declaring his surplus land and expressing consent Surplus Area, Sirsa, voluntarily declaring his surplus land and expressing consent to surrender land measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, as described in his application to surrender land measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, as described in his application to surrender land measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, as described in his application to surrender land measuring 73 kanals 18 marlas, as described in his application Ex.D3. It was further observed that even at the time of the passing of the allotment Ex.D3. It was further observed that even at the time of the passing of the allotment Ex.D3. It was further observed that even at the time of the passing of the allotment Ex.D3. It was further observed that even at the time of the passing of the allotment r by the Allotment Authority on 17.01.1984, Munadi (public proclamation) order by the Allotment Authority on 17.01.1984, Munadi (public proclamation) r by the Allotment Authority on 17.01.1984, Munadi (public proclamation) r by the Allotment Authority on 17.01.1984, Munadi (public proclamation) was duly effected in the village, which fact was specifically recorded in the order was duly effected in the village, which fact was specifically recorded in the order was duly effected in the village, which fact was specifically recorded in the order was duly effected in the village, which fact was specifically recorded in the order of the Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, Ex.D5. of the Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, Ex.D5. 17. ed surplus and The Lower Appellate Court held that the land declared surplus and The Lower Appellate Court held that the land declar The Lower Appellate Court held that the land declar , the subsequently allotted was the same land which originally belonged to Narain, the subsequently allotted was the same land which originally belonged to subsequently allotted was the same land which originally belonged to father of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, being his successors, could not now father of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, being his successors, could not now father of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, being his successors, could not now father of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, being his successors, could not now er himself challenge the validity of those proceedings, particularly when their father himself challenge the validity of those proceedings, particularly when their fath challenge the validity of those proceedings, particularly when their fath had consented to surrender the said land to the surplus pool. The Court further had consented to surrender the said land to the surplus pool. The Court further had consented to surrender the said land to the surplus pool. The Court further had consented to surrender the said land to the surplus pool. The Court further observed that Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) was duly sanctioned and recorded in the observed that Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) was duly sanctioned and recorded in the observed that Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) was duly sanctioned and recorded in the observed that Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) was duly sanctioned and recorded in the revenue record, reflecting the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495 and not 316/495 as revenue record, reflecting the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495 and not 316/495 as revenue record, reflecting the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495 and not 316/495 as revenue record, reflecting the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495 and not 316/495 as imed by them. The plaintiffs had repeatedly urged that no notice had been given claimed by them. The plaintiffs had repeatedly urged that no notice had been given imed by them. The plaintiffs had repeatedly urged that no notice had been given imed by them. The plaintiffs had repeatedly urged that no notice had been given to them before assessing the value of the land, but a perusal of the Rapat to them before assessing the value of the land, but a perusal of the Rapat to them before assessing the value of the land, but a perusal of the Rapat to them before assessing the value of the land, but a perusal of the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D11) clearly showed that Munadi was effected in the village and Roznamcha (Ex.D11) clearly showed that Munadi was effected in the village and Roznamcha (Ex.D11) clearly showed that Munadi was effected in the village and Roznamcha (Ex.D11) clearly showed that Munadi was effected in the village and y had taken action in accordance with the provisions of law. the prescribed authority had taken action in accordance with the provisions of law. y had taken action in accordance with the provisions of law. the prescribed authorit 18. The learned Lower Appellate Court also held that the orders passed by The learned Lower Appellate Court also held that the orders passed by The learned Lower Appellate Court also held that the orders passed by The learned Lower Appellate Court also held that the orders passed by the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, were legally the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, were legally the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, were legally the Collector, Sirsa, and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, were legally valid and in conformity with law, and that full opportunity had been afforded to the valid and in conformity with law, and that full opportunity had been afforded to the valid and in conformity with law, and that full opportunity had been afforded to the valid and in conformity with law, and that full opportunity had been afforded to the required under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land concerned parties as required under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land required under Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land concerned parties as Holdings Act, 1972. It was further noticed that the plaintiffs had only 75/495 Holdings Act, 1972. It was further noticed that the plaintiffs had only 75/495 Holdings Act, 1972. It was further noticed that the plaintiffs had only 75/495 Holdings Act, 1972. It was further noticed that the plaintiffs had only 75/495 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -10- - shares as per the revenue record, and therefore, they could not derive any shares as per the revenue record, and therefore, they could not derive any shares as per the revenue record, and therefore, they could not derive any shares as per the revenue record, and therefore, they could not derive any heir father had already surrendered the advantage or claim higher ownership when their father had already surrendered the heir father had already surrendered the advantage or claim higher ownership when t land. The Court emphasized that once the land was declared surplus and vested in land. The Court emphasized that once the land was declared surplus and vested in land. The Court emphasized that once the land was declared surplus and vested in land. The Court emphasized that once the land was declared surplus and vested in the State, the Prescribed Authority was competent to allot the same to eligible the State, the Prescribed Authority was competent to allot the same to eligible the State, the Prescribed Authority was competent to allot the same to eligible the State, the Prescribed Authority was competent to allot the same to eligible ugh Rapat Roznamchas allottees, who were subsequently put in possession through Rapat Roznamchas allottees, who were subsequently put in possession thro allottees, who were subsequently put in possession thro Ex.D6 to Ex.D11. It was held that the plaintiffs were no longer in possession of the Ex.D6 to Ex.D11. It was held that the plaintiffs were no longer in possession of the Ex.D6 to Ex.D11. It was held that the plaintiffs were no longer in possession of the Ex.D6 to Ex.D11. It was held that the plaintiffs were no longer in possession of the suit land after the allotment and had produced no revenue record to establish their suit land after the allotment and had produced no revenue record to establish their suit land after the allotment and had produced no revenue record to establish their suit land after the allotment and had produced no revenue record to establish their continued possession. continued possession. 19. ppellate Court held that the In this background, the learned Lower Appellate Court held that the In this background, the learned Lower A In this background, the learned Lower A Trial Court committed a grave error while deciding Issue No.1, as the findings Trial Court committed a grave error while deciding Issue No.1, as the findings Trial Court committed a grave error while deciding Issue No.1, as the findings Trial Court committed a grave error while deciding Issue No.1, as the findings recorded therein were contrary to the material on record and ignored the valid recorded therein were contrary to the material on record and ignored the valid recorded therein were contrary to the material on record and ignored the valid recorded therein were contrary to the material on record and ignored the valid Court also proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities. The Lower Appellate Court also proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities. The Lower Appellate proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities. The Lower Appellate held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood barred under Section 26 of the held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood barred under Section 26 of the held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood barred under Section 26 of the held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, since the land had been declared Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, since the land had been declared Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, since the land had been declared Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, since the land had been declared surplus and the statutory authorities had acted within their competence. It was surplus and the statutory authorities had acted within their competence. It was surplus and the statutory authorities had acted within their competence. It was surplus and the statutory authorities had acted within their competence. It was rved that the Civil Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining and observed that the Civil Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining and rved that the Civil Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining and rved that the Civil Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining and decreeing the suit despite an express statutory bar, and that the plaintiffs, having decreeing the suit despite an express statutory bar, and that the plaintiffs, having decreeing the suit despite an express statutory bar, and that the plaintiffs, having decreeing the suit despite an express statutory bar, and that the plaintiffs, having already availed of the remedies of appeal and revision before the Collector and already availed of the remedies of appeal and revision before the Collector and already availed of the remedies of appeal and revision before the Collector and already availed of the remedies of appeal and revision before the Collector and ould not invoke the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to question the Commissioner, could not invoke the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to question the ould not invoke the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to question the Commissioner, c legality of the orders passed by the competent tribunals. legality of the orders passed by the competent tribunals. legality of the orders passed by the competent tribunals. 20.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court held that In view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court held that In view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court held that In view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court held that oneous and the findings of the Trial Court on Issues No.1 and 2 were erroneous and the findings of the Trial Court on Issues No.1 and 2 were err the findings of the Trial Court on Issues No.1 and 2 were err unsustainable, and accordingly, the same were reversed. The appeal was accepted, unsustainable, and accordingly, the same were reversed. The appeal was accepted, unsustainable, and accordingly, the same were reversed. The appeal was accepted, unsustainable, and accordingly, the same were reversed. The appeal was accepted, and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the Trial Court were set and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the Trial Court were set and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the Trial Court were set and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the Trial Court were set aside. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -11- - 21. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the present Regular 21.02.1998 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the present Regular passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the present Regular passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the present Regular appellants before this Court. Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs–appellants before this Court. Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs 22. respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 chose to contest the appeal Upon notice, respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 chose to contest the appeal respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 chose to contest the appeal Upon notice, whereas respondents No. 6 and 8 to 10 were proceeded ex whereas respondents No. 6 and 8 to 10 we re proceeded ex-parte. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge reversing the reasoned findings of the Trial Court are illegal, without jurisdiction, and reasoned findings of the Trial Court are illegal, without jurisdiction, a reasoned findings of the Trial Court are illegal, without jurisdiction, a well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court are illegal, without jurisdiction, a against the facts and evidence on record. It is argued that the learned Lower against the facts and evidence on record. It is argued that the learned Lower against the facts and evidence on record. It is argued that the learned Lower against the facts and evidence on record. It is argued that the learned Lower Appellate Court has erred in ignoring the material documentary evidence, Appellate Court has erred in ignoring the material documentary evidence, Appellate Court has erred in ignoring the material documentary evidence, Appellate Court has erred in ignoring the material documentary evidence, particularly Ex. 85, which clearly records the P1, the Jamabandi for the year 1984–85, which clearly records the P1, the Jamabandi for the year 1984 iffs as 316/495. The Trial Court, after considering this revenue share of the plaintiffs as 316/495. The Trial Court, after considering this revenue iffs as 316/495. The Trial Court, after considering this revenue share of the plaint entry, had rightly held that the plaintiffs were owners to that extent. However, the entry, had rightly held that the plaintiffs were owners to that extent. However, the entry, had rightly held that the plaintiffs were owners to that extent. However, the entry, had rightly held that the plaintiffs were owners to that extent. However, the learned Additional District Judge failed to record any finding as to under what learned Additional District Judge failed to record any finding as to under what learned Additional District Judge failed to record any finding as to under what learned Additional District Judge failed to record any finding as to under what share was reduced to 75/495 through Mutation No.316 authority of law the said share was reduced to 75/495 through Mutation No.316 share was reduced to 75/495 through Mutation No.316 authority of law the said D4). It is submitted that the said mutation was entered and sanctioned behind (Ex. D4). It is submitted that the said mutation was entered and sanctioned behind D4). It is submitted that the said mutation was entered and sanctioned behind D4). It is submitted that the said mutation was entered and sanctioned behind the back of the plaintiffs, without notice or opportunity of hearing, and as such, it the back of the plaintiffs, without notice or opportunity of hearing, and as such, it the back of the plaintiffs, without notice or opportunity of hearing, and as such, it the back of the plaintiffs, without notice or opportunity of hearing, and as such, it ed counsel for the appellants has further argued carries no evidentiary value. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued ed counsel for the appellants has further argued carries no evidentiary value. Learn that a mutation in the revenue record does not confer or extinguish ownership that a mutation in the revenue record does not confer or extinguish ownership that a mutation in the revenue record does not confer or extinguish ownership that a mutation in the revenue record does not confer or extinguish ownership rights, it being merely an instrument for fiscal purposes, and, therefore, reliance rights, it being merely an instrument for fiscal purposes, and, therefore, reliance rights, it being merely an instrument for fiscal purposes, and, therefore, reliance rights, it being merely an instrument for fiscal purposes, and, therefore, reliance placed by the Lower Appellate Court on Ex. placed by the Lower Appellate Court on to diminish the plaintiffs’ Ex. D4 to diminish the plaintiffs’ ownership share was misplaced and unsustainable in law. ownership share was misplaced and unsustainable in law. ownership share was misplaced and unsustainable in law. 24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that D4, i.e., Mutation No.316, was duly sanctioned and reflected in the official Ex. D4, i.e., Mutation No.316, was duly sanctioned and reflected in the official D4, i.e., Mutation No.316, was duly sanctioned and reflected in the official D4, i.e., Mutation No.316, was duly sanctioned and reflected in the official , showing the plaintiffs’ share as 75/495. It is submitted that this revenue record, showing the plaintiffs’ share as 75/495. It is submitted that this , showing the plaintiffs’ share as 75/495. It is submitted that this , showing the plaintiffs’ share as 75/495. It is submitted that this TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -12- - mutation was never challenged by the plaintiffs before any competent forum, nor mutation was never challenged by the plaintiffs before any competent forum, nor mutation was never challenged by the plaintiffs before any competent forum, nor mutation was never challenged by the plaintiffs before any competent forum, nor was any evidence produced to show that the same was illegally entered. Once the was any evidence produced to show that the same was illegally entered. Once the was any evidence produced to show that the same was illegally entered. Once the was any evidence produced to show that the same was illegally entered. Once the certified copy of a sanctioned mutation stood certified copy of a sanctio , the burden shifted upon ned mutation stood exhibited, the burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to establish that the entry was erroneous or obtained without the plaintiffs to establish that the entry was erroneous or obtained without the plaintiffs to establish that the entry was erroneous or obtained without the plaintiffs to establish that the entry was erroneous or obtained without authority, which they failed to do. Hence, the learned Lower Appellate Court was authority, which they failed to do. Hence, the learned Lower Appellate Court was authority, which they failed to do. Hence, the learned Lower Appellate Court was authority, which they failed to do. Hence, the learned Lower Appellate Court was sents the correct and existing position, justified in relying upon Ex.D4, as it represents the correct and existing position, sents the correct and existing position, justified in relying upon and there is nothing on record to discredit its authenticity or legality. and there is nothing on record to discredit its authenticity or legality. and there is nothing on record to discredit its authenticity or legality. 25. this After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, this After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, D4). no illegality in the reliance placed upon Mutation No.316 (Ex. D4). no illegality in the reliance placed upon Mutation No.316 ( Court finds no illegality in the reliance placed upon Mutation No.316 ( The said mutation correctly reflects the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495, which The said mutation correctly reflects the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495, which The said mutation correctly reflects the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495, which The said mutation correctly reflects the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495, which corresponds to the earlier proceedings culminating in the declaration of surplus corresponds to the earlier proceedings culminating in the declaration of surplus corresponds to the earlier proceedings culminating in the declaration of surplus corresponds to the earlier proceedings culminating in the declaration of surplus thority and the voluntary consent given by their father, land by the competent authority and the voluntary consent given by their father, thority and the voluntary consent given by their father, land by the competent au . The plaintiffs have neither challenged this mutation before the revenue Narain. The plaintiffs have neither challenged this mutation before the revenue . The plaintiffs have neither challenged this mutation before the revenue . The plaintiffs have neither challenged this mutation before the revenue authorities nor led any cogent evidence to prove that the same was wrongly authorities nor led any cogent evidence to prove that the same was wrongly authorities nor led any cogent evidence to prove that the same was wrongly authorities nor led any cogent evidence to prove that the same was wrongly of law that entries in revenue records, sanctioned. In view of the settled position of law that entries in revenue records, of law that entries in revenue records, sanctioned. In view of the settled position unless rebutted by credible evidence, are presumed to be correct and valid, the unless rebutted by credible evidence, are presumed to be correct and valid, the unless rebutted by credible evidence, are presumed to be correct and valid, the unless rebutted by credible evidence, are presumed to be correct and valid, the D4 cannot be said to finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court based on Ex. D4 cannot be said to finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court based on finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court based on suffer from any legal infirmity. Moreover this plea was t suffer from any legal infirmity. aken by plaintiffs before Moreover this plea was taken by plaintiffs before the Appellate Authority/Collector, Sirsa and was dealt with in the proper forum. the Appellate Authority/Collector, Sirsa and was dealt with in the proper forum. the Appellate Authority/Collector, Sirsa and was dealt with in the proper forum. the Appellate Authority/Collector, Sirsa and was dealt with in the proper forum. The Civil Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the impugned order dated The Civil Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the impugned order dated The Civil Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the impugned order dated The Civil Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the impugned order dated 15.05.1984 (Ex.D-12) passed by the Collector, Sirsa, which was affirm 15.05.1984 (Ex.D ed in 12) passed by the Collector, Sirsa, which was affirmed in 3) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar. impugned order dated 04.06.1987 (Ex.D-3) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar. 3) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar. impugned order dated 04.06.1987 (Ex.D Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mutation in question is this Court is of the considered opinion that the mutation in question is the considered opinion that the mutation in question is correct and depicts the true share of the plaintiffs in the suit land. correct and depicts the true share of the plaintiffs in the suit land. correct and depicts the true share of the plaintiffs in the suit land. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -13- - 26. el for the appellants has further contended that the Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the el for the appellants has further contended that the Learned couns mandatory provisions of Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings mandatory provisions of Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings mandatory provisions of Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings mandatory provisions of Section 16(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, have not been complied with. It is urged that under the said provision, it Act, 1972, have not been complied with. It is urged that under the said provision, it Act, 1972, have not been complied with. It is urged that under the said provision, it Act, 1972, have not been complied with. It is urged that under the said provision, it uthority to issue notice to all persons known is the bounden duty of the prescribed authority to issue notice to all persons known uthority to issue notice to all persons known is the bounden duty of the prescribed a to have any interest in the land, including the landowners, tenants, or any other to have any interest in the land, including the landowners, tenants, or any other to have any interest in the land, including the landowners, tenants, or any other to have any interest in the land, including the landowners, tenants, or any other interested persons, on the basis of the entries in the revenue record or otherwise, interested persons, on the basis of the entries in the revenue record or otherwise, interested persons, on the basis of the entries in the revenue record or otherwise, interested persons, on the basis of the entries in the revenue record or otherwise, as per the Jamabandi for the year before assessing the amount payable. Since, as per the Jamabandi for the year as per the Jamabandi for the year before assessing the amount payable. Since, P1), the plaintiffs were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 1984–85 (Ex. P1), the plaintiffs were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 P1), the plaintiffs were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 P1), the plaintiffs were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 shares, they were necessary parties within the meaning of Section 16(2), and notice shares, they were necessary parties within the meaning of Section 16(2), and notice shares, they were necessary parties within the meaning of Section 16(2), and notice shares, they were necessary parties within the meaning of Section 16(2), and notice n. Learned counsel to them was mandatory before the fixation of compensation. Learned counsel to them was mandatory before the fixation of compensatio to them was mandatory before the fixation of compensatio submits that the Trial Court had specifically recorded a finding that DW1 admitted submits that the Trial Court had specifically recorded a finding that DW1 admitted submits that the Trial Court had specifically recorded a finding that DW1 admitted submits that the Trial Court had specifically recorded a finding that DW1 admitted examination that there was neither any order sheet nor any order in his cross-examination that there was neither any order sheet nor any order examination that there was neither any order sheet nor any order examination that there was neither any order sheet nor any order Section regarding issuance of the mandatory 15 days’ notice to the plaintiffs under Section regarding issuance of the mandatory 15 days’ notice to the plaintiffs under regarding issuance of the mandatory 15 days’ notice to the plaintiffs under 16(2). The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, did not contradict or even 16(2). The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, did not contradict or even 16(2). The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, did not contradict or even 16(2). The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, did not contradict or even discuss this categorical finding. It is further argued that the reliance placed by the discuss this categorical finding. It is further argued that the reliance placed by the discuss this categorical finding. It is further argued that the reliance placed by the discuss this categorical finding. It is further argued that the reliance placed by the Lower Appellate Court on Ex. D3, the alleged application filed by Lower Appellate Court on , father of D3, the alleged application filed by Narain, father of the plaintiffs, declaring the land surplus, is misconceived and amounts to non- the plaintiffs, declaring the land surplus, is misconceived and amounts to non the plaintiffs, declaring the land surplus, is misconceived and amounts to non the plaintiffs, declaring the land surplus, is misconceived and amounts to non application of mind. The filing of such an application by the big landowner did not application of mind. The filing of such an application by the big landowner did not application of mind. The filing of such an application by the big landowner did not application of mind. The filing of such an application by the big landowner did not absolve the prescribed authority of its statutory obligation to issue an advance 15 absolve the prescribed authority of its statutory obligation to issue an advance 15 absolve the prescribed authority of its statutory obligation to issue an advance 15 absolve the prescribed authority of its statutory obligation to issue an advance 15 tice to the affected persons before assessing compensation. Counsel also days’ notice to the affected persons before assessing compensation. Counsel also tice to the affected persons before assessing compensation. Counsel also tice to the affected persons before assessing compensation. Counsel also submits that the Trial Court rightly held that the alleged notice recorded vide Rapat submits that the Trial Court rightly held that the alleged notice recorded vide Rapat submits that the Trial Court rightly held that the alleged notice recorded vide Rapat submits that the Trial Court rightly held that the alleged notice recorded vide Rapat No.128 dated 04.01.1984 was not for 15 days, as it was only for 07.01.1984, and No.128 dated 04.01.1984 was not for 15 days, as it was only for 07.01.1984, and No.128 dated 04.01.1984 was not for 15 days, as it was only for 07.01.1984, and No.128 dated 04.01.1984 was not for 15 days, as it was only for 07.01.1984, and further, the said notice was addressed to the tenants and not to the landowners, who notice was addressed to the tenants and not to the landowners, who notice was addressed to the tenants and not to the landowners, who had a direct interest in the land. Hence, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court had a direct interest in the land. Hence, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court had a direct interest in the land. Hence, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court had a direct interest in the land. Hence, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that Munadi was effected as mentioned in Ex. that Munadi was effected as mentioned in D5 (order dated 17.01.1984) is Ex. D5 (order dated 17.01.1984) is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -14- - ation of record, as the mere recital of Munadi in the based on an erroneous appreciation of record, as the mere recital of Munadi in the ation of record, as the mere recital of Munadi in the based on an erroneous appreci order cannot substitute for the mandatory service of notice under the Act. order cannot substitute for the mandatory service of notice under the Act. order cannot substitute for the mandatory service of notice under the Act. order cannot substitute for the mandatory service of notice under the Act. According to the appellants, the burden lay heavily on the defendants to prove the According to the appellants, the burden lay heavily on the defendants to prove the According to the appellants, the burden lay heavily on the defendants to prove the According to the appellants, the burden lay heavily on the defendants to prove the idence, which they failed to fact of actual Munadi through independent evidence, which they failed to fact of actual Munadi through independent ev fact of actual Munadi through independent ev discharge, and in the absence of such proof, the presumption of compliance with discharge, and in the absence of such proof, the presumption of compliance with discharge, and in the absence of such proof, the presumption of compliance with discharge, and in the absence of such proof, the presumption of compliance with Section 16(2) could not be drawn. Section 16(2) could not be drawn. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has refuted the above Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has refuted the above Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has refuted the above Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has refuted the above question did not belong to the plaintiffs in submissions and argued that the land in question did not belong to the plaintiffs in question did not belong to the plaintiffs in submissions and argued that the land in , who had himself their individual capacity but was the land of their father, Narain, who had himself their individual capacity but was the land of their father, their individual capacity but was the land of their father, voluntarily surrendered the same as surplus. It is pointed out that the land was voluntarily surrendered the same as surplus. It is pointed out that the land was voluntarily surrendered the same as surplus. It is pointed out that the land was voluntarily surrendered the same as surplus. It is pointed out that the land was declared surplus vide Ex. D1 dated 09.10.1980, declared surplus vide D2) D1 dated 09.10.1980, and the Collector’s order (Ex. D2) as well as the application Ex. D3, filed by Narain as well as the application , clearly show that he had selected Narain, clearly show that he had selected the very land to be declared surplus. Once the big landowner himself participated the very land to be declared surplus. Once the big landowner himself participated the very land to be declared surplus. Once the big landowner himself participated the very land to be declared surplus. Once the big landowner himself participated nd, there was no requirement in the proceedings and consented to surrender the land, there was no requirement in the proceedings and consented to surrender the la in the proceedings and consented to surrender the la in law to issue a separate notice to his sons, who merely claim through him. It is in law to issue a separate notice to his sons, who merely claim through him. It is in law to issue a separate notice to his sons, who merely claim through him. It is in law to issue a separate notice to his sons, who merely claim through him. It is D1) was never further submitted that the order declaring the land surplus (Ex. D1) was never further submitted that the order declaring the land surplus ( further submitted that the order declaring the land surplus ( mpetent revenue challenged by the plaintiffs or their father either before the competent revenue challenged by the plaintiffs or their father either before the co challenged by the plaintiffs or their father either before the co authorities or even in the present proceedings. The orders of the Collector and authorities or even in the present proceedings. The orders of the Collector and authorities or even in the present proceedings. The orders of the Collector and authorities or even in the present proceedings. The orders of the Collector and 13) passed in appeal, were all contested by the Commissioner ( Ex. D-12, D-13) passed in appeal, were all contested by the 13) passed in appeal, were all contested by the Commissioner ( Ex. D plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who participated in those proceedings , cannot now plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who participated in those proceedings , cannot now plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who participated in those proceedings , cannot now plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who participated in those proceedings , cannot now or question those concluded proceedings on the ground of want of notice. reopen or question those concluded proceedings on the ground of want of notice. or question those concluded proceedings on the ground of want of notice. or question those concluded proceedings on the ground of want of notice. 28. Respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties considered. Respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties considered. Respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties considered. Respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties considered. The material on record clearly establishes that the land in question was originally The material on record clearly establishes that the land in question was originally The material on record clearly establishes that the land in question was originally The material on record clearly establishes that the land in question was originally , the father of the plaintiffs, and that the foundational owned and held by Narain, the father of the plaintiffs, and that the foundational , the father of the plaintiffs, and that the foundational owned and held by order declaring the land as surplus was passed by the prescribed authority on order declaring the land as surplus was passed by the prescribed authority on order declaring the land as surplus was passed by the prescribed authority on order declaring the land as surplus was passed by the prescribed authority on TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -15- - 09.10.1980 (Ex. , as the owner, filed an application dated Ex. D1). Thereafter, Narain, as the owner, filed an application dated , as the owner, filed an application dated 28.02.1983 (Ex. Ex. D3) selecting the reserved area thus the sequence is that the land area, thus the sequence is that the land was first declared surplus and subsequently the owner participated in the selection was first declared surplus and subsequently the owner participated in the selection was first declared surplus and subsequently the owner participated in the selection was first declared surplus and subsequently the owner participated in the selection process of reserved area. Significantly, the principal order declaring the land process of reserved area. Significantly, the principal order declaring the land process of reserved area. Significantly, the principal order declaring the land process of reserved area. Significantly, the principal order declaring the land surplus, Ex. D1, has not been challenged by the plaintiffs in the present civil suit D1, has not been challenged by the plaintiffs in the present civil suit by the plaintiffs in the present civil suit and continues to stand on record. and continues to stand on record. 29. It is further evident from the record that the orders ( It is further evident fr om the record that the orders (Ex.D-12 & D- -13) now impugned in this suit are the very orders which were the subject matter of now impugned in this suit are the very orders which were the subject matter of now impugned in this suit are the very orders which were the subject matter of now impugned in this suit are the very orders which were the subject matter of iled by the plaintiffs, before the Collector and the appeals or revision filed by the plaintiffs, before the Collector and the iled by the plaintiffs, before the Collector and the appeals or revision f Commissioner. The plaintiffs contested those proceedings and, on the record, lost Commissioner. The plaintiffs contested those proceedings and, on the record, lost Commissioner. The plaintiffs contested those proceedings and, on the record, lost Commissioner. The plaintiffs contested those proceedings and, on the record, lost at all stages. Although the plaintiffs plead that their father transferred the land in at all stages. Although the plaintiffs plead that their father transferred the land in at all stages. Although the plaintiffs plead that their father transferred the land in at all stages. Although the plaintiffs plead that their father transferred the land in disclose the date when such transfer was effected. their favour, the record does not disclose the date when such transfer was effected. disclose the date when such transfer was effected. their favour, the record does not All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit regarding non issuance of All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit regarding non issuance of All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit regarding non issuance of All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit regarding non issuance of notice of 15 days and reducing their share and amount of compensation being notice of 15 days and reducing their share and amount of compensation being notice of 15 days and reducing their share and amount of compensation being notice of 15 days and reducing their share and amount of compensation being evenue authorities and decided inadequate were considered by the appellate revenue authorities and decided inadequate were considered by the appellate r inadequate were considered by the appellate r against the plaintiffs. Here comes the bar of section 26 of the A against the plaintiffs. Here come ct which reads as s the bar of section 26 of the Act which reads as follows:- “26. BAR OF JURISDICTION. — “26. BAR OF JURISDICTION. (1) No Civil Court shall have — (1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to — jurisdiction to performance of (a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of (a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or (b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act (b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act (b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act nancial required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Fi TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -16- - Commissioner, Commissioner, Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Collector or the Collector or the the the Prescribed Authority. (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority made under or in pursuance of Collector or the Prescribed Authority made under or in pursuance of Collector or the Prescribed Authority made under or in pursuance of Collector or the Prescribed Authority made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in question in any Court.” this Act shall be called in question in this Act shall be called in question in 30. Relying on the above statutory bar under section 26 of the act, learned Relying on the above statutory bar under section 26 of the act, learned Relying on the above statutory bar under section 26 of the act, learned Relying on the above statutory bar under section 26 of the act, learned namely, a counsel for the respondents submits that the relief sought in the plaint namely, a counsel for the respondents submits that the relief sought counsel for the respondents submits that the relief sought declaration that the orders passed by the prescribed authority, the Collector and the declaration that the orders passed by the prescribed authority, the Collector and the declaration that the orders passed by the prescribed authority, the Collector and the declaration that the orders passed by the prescribed authority, the Collector and the Commissioner declaring land surplus, assessing compensation and making Commissioner declaring land surplus, assessing compensation and making Commissioner declaring land surplus, assessing compensation and making Commissioner declaring land surplus, assessing compensation and making allotments are illegal and void, squarely falls within the prohibition of sub allotments are illegal and void, section squarely falls within the prohibition of sub-section section (2) of Section 26. It is argued that once the land has been (1)(b) and sub-section (2) of Section 26. It is argued that once the land has been section (2) of Section 26. It is argued that once the land has been section (2) of Section 26. It is argued that once the land has been declared surplus and the prescribed authority has acted under the Act, the matter declared surplus and the prescribed authority has acted under the Act, the matter declared surplus and the prescribed authority has acted under the Act, the matter declared surplus and the prescribed authority has acted under the Act, the matter becomes one exclusively triable by the statutory forums, and a Civil Court cannot becomes one exclusively triable by the statutory forums, and a Civil Court cannot becomes one exclusively triable by the statutory forums, and a Civil Court cannot becomes one exclusively triable by the statutory forums, and a Civil Court cannot t in appeal over those determinations. Reliance is placed upon the reopen or sit in appeal over those determinations. Reliance is placed upon the t in appeal over those determinations. Reliance is placed upon the t in appeal over those determinations. Reliance is placed upon the Devinder Singh and others v. State of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh and others v. State of Devinder Singh and others v. State of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in , wherein it was held that when an Haryana and another, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 491, wherein it was held that when an Haryana and another, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 491 Haryana and another, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 491 llotted by the prescribed authority under the Ceiling area is declared surplus and allotted by the prescribed authority under the Ceiling llotted by the prescribed authority under the Ceiling area is declared surplus and a Act, a civil suit challenging such orders is not maintainable in view of the statutory Act, a civil suit challenging such orders is not maintainable in view of the statutory Act, a civil suit challenging such orders is not maintainable in view of the statutory Act, a civil suit challenging such orders is not maintainable in view of the statutory bar. The Supreme Court affirmed that all disputes regarding surplus area, allotment bar. The Supreme Court affirmed that all disputes regarding surplus area, allotment bar. The Supreme Court affirmed that all disputes regarding surplus area, allotment bar. The Supreme Court affirmed that all disputes regarding surplus area, allotment only before the authorities designated by the Act, and possession must be agitated only before the authorities designated by the Act, only before the authorities designated by the Act, and possession must be agitated whose orders attain finality unless set aside in the statutory hierarchy. whose orders attain finality unless set aside in the statutory hierarchy. whose orders attain finality unless set aside in the statutory hierarchy. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, contends that Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, contends that Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, contends that Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, contends that rgued that in the present case the bar contained in Section 26 is not absolute. It is argued that in the present case the bar contained in Section 26 is not absolute. It is a the bar contained in Section 26 is not absolute. It is a the mandatory procedure under Section 16(2) was not followed, as no valid notice the mandatory procedure under Section 16(2) was not followed, as no valid notice the mandatory procedure under Section 16(2) was not followed, as no valid notice the mandatory procedure under Section 16(2) was not followed, as no valid notice was issued to the plaintiffs, who were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 was issued to the plaintiffs, who were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 was issued to the plaintiffs, who were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 was issued to the plaintiffs, who were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/495 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -17- - passed behind their shares. Consequently, the order determining compensation was passed behind their shares. Consequently, the order determining compensation was shares. Consequently, the order determining compensation was back, rendering it void ab initio. According to the appellants, where the impugned back, rendering it void ab initio. According to the appellants, where the impugned back, rendering it void ab initio. According to the appellants, where the impugned back, rendering it void ab initio. According to the appellants, where the impugned orders are patently without jurisdiction and have been passed in violation of orders are patently without jurisdiction and have been passed in violation of orders are patently without jurisdiction and have been passed in violation of orders are patently without jurisdiction and have been passed in violation of ivil Court mandatory provisions of the Act and of principles of natural justice, the Civil Court mandatory provisions of the Act and of principles of natural justice, the C mandatory provisions of the Act and of principles of natural justice, the C can step in to protect the rights of affected persons. In support of this proposition, can step in to protect the rights of affected persons. In support of this proposition, can step in to protect the rights of affected persons. In support of this proposition, can step in to protect the rights of affected persons. In support of this proposition, State of Haryana reliance is placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana reliance is placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in reliance is placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in , which held, while interpreting Section 25 of the , which held, while interpreting Section 25 of th v. Vinod Kumar, 1987 RRR 81, which held, while interpreting Section 25 of th v. Vinod Kumar, 1987 RRR 81 Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (a provision analogous to Section 26 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (a provision analogous to Section 26 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (a provision analogous to Section 26 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (a provision analogous to Section 26 of the Haryana Act), that where the landowners had not been afforded an opportunity the Haryana Act), that where the landowners had not been afforded an opportunity the Haryana Act), that where the landowners had not been afforded an opportunity the Haryana Act), that where the landowners had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing as required by Rule 6 of the Rules framed thereunder, the order was a of hearing as required by Rule 6 of the Rules framed thereunder, the order was a of hearing as required by Rule 6 of the Rules framed thereunder, the order was a of hearing as required by Rule 6 of the Rules framed thereunder, the order was a d could be challenged in a Civil Court despite the statutory bar. On the nullity and could be challenged in a Civil Court despite the statutory bar. On the d could be challenged in a Civil Court despite the statutory bar. On the d could be challenged in a Civil Court despite the statutory bar. On the same analogy, it is contended that the present suit, based upon denial of hearing same analogy, it is contended that the present suit, based upon denial of hearing same analogy, it is contended that the present suit, based upon denial of hearing same analogy, it is contended that the present suit, based upon denial of hearing service of notice, was maintainable before the Civil Court. and non-service of notice, was maintainable before the Civil Court. service of notice, was maintainable before the Civil Court. 32. val submissions and the statutory scheme, Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the statutory scheme, val submissions and the statutory scheme, Upon consideration of the ri I am of the view that the contention of the respondents merits acceptance. Section I am of the view that the contention of the respondents merits acceptance. Section I am of the view that the contention of the respondents merits acceptance. Section I am of the view that the contention of the respondents merits acceptance. Section section (1)(b) 26 of the Act is couched in clear and comprehensive language. Sub-section (1)(b) 26 of the Act is couched in clear and comprehensive language. Sub 26 of the Act is couched in clear and comprehensive language. Sub r dealing with any matter” which forbids the Civil Court from “settling, deciding or dealing with any matter” which forbids the Civil Court from “settling, deciding o forbids the Civil Court from “settling, deciding o section the Act requires to be determined by the prescribed authorities, while sub-section the Act requires to be determined by the prescribed authorities, while sub the Act requires to be determined by the prescribed authorities, while sub (2) further prohibits any order of those authorities from being “called in question in (2) further prohibits any order of those authorities from being “called in question in (2) further prohibits any order of those authorities from being “called in question in (2) further prohibits any order of those authorities from being “called in question in confer exclusive jurisdiction any court.” The legislative intent is unmistakable to confer exclusive jurisdiction any court.” The legislative intent is unmistakable to any court.” The legislative intent is unmistakable to upon the special tribunals constituted under the Act and to preclude parallel upon the special tribunals constituted under the Act and to preclude parallel upon the special tribunals constituted under the Act and to preclude parallel upon the special tribunals constituted under the Act and to preclude parallel proceedings in the Civil Court. In the present case, the land was declared surplus proceedings in the Civil Court. In the present case, the land was declared surplus proceedings in the Civil Court. In the present case, the land was declared surplus proceedings in the Civil Court. In the present case, the land was declared surplus pplication of vide order dated 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1), followed by the selection application of vide order dated 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1), followed by the selection a vide order dated 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1), followed by the selection a (Ex.D3), and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders were all passed Narain (Ex.D3), and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders were all passed (Ex.D3), and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders were all passed (Ex.D3), and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders were all passed by the competent authorities under the Act. The plaintiffs participated in those by the competent authorities under the Act. The plaintiffs participated in those by the competent authorities under the Act. The plaintiffs participated in those by the competent authorities under the Act. The plaintiffs participated in those TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -18- - they proceedings and contested the matter up to the revisional stage, where they proceedings and contested the matter up to the revisional stage, where proceedings and contested the matter up to the revisional stage, where unsuccessful. Those statutory orders have attained finality. The challenge remained unsuccessful. Those statutory orders have attained finality. The challenge unsuccessful. Those statutory orders have attained finality. The challenge unsuccessful. Those statutory orders have attained finality. The challenge now raised by them in the Civil Court amounts to a collateral attack upon the very now raised by them in the Civil Court amounts to a collateral attack upon the very now raised by them in the Civil Court amounts to a collateral attack upon the very now raised by them in the Civil Court amounts to a collateral attack upon the very proceedings that Section 26 seeks to protect from re-litigation. proceedings that Section 26 seeks to protect from re proceedings that Section 26 seeks to protect from re 33. The reliance placed by the appellants upon The reliance placed b y the appellants upon Vinod Kumar’s case Vinod Kumar’s case is misplaced. The Full Bench recognised a limited exception where the authority’s misplaced. The Full Bench recognised a limited exception where the authority’s misplaced. The Full Bench recognised a limited exception where the authority’s misplaced. The Full Bench recognised a limited exception where the authority’s action is wholly without jurisdiction or taken in total denial of natural justice. action is wholly without jurisdiction or taken in total denial of natural justice. action is wholly without jurisdiction or taken in total denial of natural justice. action is wholly without jurisdiction or taken in total denial of natural justice. However, as held by the Supreme Court in Devinder However, as held by the Supreme Court in , that Devinder Singh’s case (supra), that exception cannot be enlarged to permit civil suits merely on allegations of exception cannot be enlarged to permit civil suits merely on allegations of exception cannot be enlarged to permit civil suits merely on allegations of exception cannot be enlarged to permit civil suits merely on allegations of procedural irregularity once the competent authority has acted within its statutory procedural irregularity once the competent authority has acted within its statutory procedural irregularity once the competent authority has acted within its statutory procedural irregularity once the competent authority has acted within its statutory e recorded domain. In the case at hand, the proceedings were directed against the recorded domain. In the case at hand, the proceedings were directed against th domain. In the case at hand, the proceedings were directed against th owner, Narain; statutory machinery was duly invoked. The orders impugned are ; statutory machinery was duly invoked. The orders impugned are statutory machinery was duly invoked. The orders impugned are not nullities but decisions within jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Court had no not nullities but decisions within jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Court had no not nullities but decisions within jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Court had no not nullities but decisions within jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present suit. The learned Lower Appellate jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present suit. The learned Lower Appellate jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present suit. The learned Lower Appellate jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present suit. The learned Lower Appellate rt was therefore correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court and in Court was therefore correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court and in rt was therefore correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court and in rt was therefore correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court and in holding that the suit was barred by Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land holding that the suit was barred by Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land holding that the suit was barred by Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land holding that the suit was barred by Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Holdings Act, 1972. Conclusion 34. No other point was agitated by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. No other point was agitated by the learned counsel for the plainti No other point was agitated by the learned counsel for the plainti No other point was agitated by the learned counsel for the plainti This Court comes to the conclusion, in view of the above discussion and the This Court comes to the conclusion, in view of the above discussion and the This Court comes to the conclusion, in view of the above discussion and the This Court comes to the conclusion, in view of the above discussion and the material on record, that the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate material on record, that the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate material on record, that the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate material on record, that the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court suffer from no infirmity either in law or on facts. The record clearly Court suffer from no infirmity either in law or on facts. The record clearly Court suffer from no infirmity either in law or on facts. The record clearly Court suffer from no infirmity either in law or on facts. The record clearly e land was declared surplus by the prescribed authority vide demonstrates that the land was declared surplus by the prescribed authority vide e land was declared surplus by the prescribed authority vide demonstrates that th order dated 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1). Thereafter, Narain order dated 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1). T , the father of the plaintiffs, Narain, the father of the plaintiffs, himself participated in the proceedings by filing an application dated 28.02.1983 himself participated in the proceedings by filing an application dated 28.02.1983 himself participated in the proceedings by filing an application dated 28.02.1983 himself participated in the proceedings by filing an application dated 28.02.1983 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-786-1998 (O&M) -19- - land. The orders of the Allotment Authority, (Ex.D3) selecting the reserved land. The orders of the Allotment Authority, land. The orders of the Allotment Authority, (Ex.D3) selecting the Collector and the Commissioner were passed in due exercise of statutory powers, Collector and the Commissioner were passed in due exercise of statutory powers, Collector and the Commissioner were passed in due exercise of statutory powers, Collector and the Commissioner were passed in due exercise of statutory powers, All the after considering the matter in detail, and those orders have attained finality. All the after considering the matter in detail, and those orders have attained finality. after considering the matter in detail, and those orders have attained finality. were considered by the above said pleas taken by plaintiffs in present suit were considered by the above said were considered by the above said pleas taken by plaintiffs in present suit The plaintiffs, cannot reopen or authorities while passing impugned orders. The plaintiffs, cannot reopen or authorities while passing impugned orders. authorities while passing impugned orders. challenge the same proceedings before the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction is challenge the same proceedings before the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction is challenge the same proceedings before the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction is challenge the same proceedings before the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction is ings Act, expressly barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, expressly barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Hold expressly barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Hold 1972. Moreover, the revenue record, particularly the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D11), 1972. Moreover, the revenue record, particularly the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D11), 1972. Moreover, the revenue record, particularly the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D11), 1972. Moreover, the revenue record, particularly the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D11), clearly indicates that possession of the surplus land had been duly delivered to the clearly indicates that possession of the surplus land had been duly delivered to the clearly indicates that possession of the surplus land had been duly delivered to the clearly indicates that possession of the surplus land had been duly delivered to the allottees in accordance with law, thereby completing the process under the Act. allottees in accordance with law, thereby completing the process under the Act. allottees in accordance with law, thereby completing the process under the Act. allottees in accordance with law, thereby completing the process under the Act. ere is no evidence on record to suggest that the plaintiffs continue in possession There is no evidence on record to suggest that the plaintiffs continue in possession ere is no evidence on record to suggest that the plaintiffs continue in possession ere is no evidence on record to suggest that the plaintiffs continue in possession or that any illegality occurred in the delivery of possession. Consequently, this or that any illegality occurred in the delivery of possession. Consequently, this or that any illegality occurred in the delivery of possession. Consequently, this or that any illegality occurred in the delivery of possession. Consequently, this reasoned judgment and decree Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree Court finds no ground to interfere with the well Court finds no ground to interfere with the well 998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the suit dated 21.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the suit 998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the suit 998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed as barred by jurisdiction and devoid of merit. of the plaintiffs was dismissed as barred by jurisdiction and devoid of merit. of the plaintiffs was dismissed as barred by jurisdiction and devoid of merit. 35. The present Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the The present Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the The present Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the The present Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the Lower Appellate Court are hereby upheld. judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court are hereby upheld. judgment and decree of the learned 36. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. October 14, 2025 tripti 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document