O&M) Smt. Khazani and others Smt. Khazani and others v. State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others
Case Details
RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 20.12.2024 Reserved on: 20.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement RSA RSA-367-1999 (O&M) Smt. Khazani and others Smt. Khazani and others ...Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others ...Respondents ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Kashmir Singh, Advocate Present : Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate Present : for the appellants. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. for respondents No.1 and 2. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid judgments and decrees dated 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 passed by judgments and decrees dated 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 passed by judgments and decrees dated 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 passed by judgments and decrees dated 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’) stands dismissed. referred to as ‘the appellants’) stands dismissed. referred to as ‘the appellants’) stands dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, Briefly stating, Briefly stating, the appellants sought declaration the appellants sought declaration the appellants sought declaration challenging the order dated 11.12.1990 passed by the prescribed challenging the order dated 11.12.1990 passed by the prescribed challenging the order dated 11.12.1990 passed by the prescribed challenging the order dated 11.12.1990 passed by the prescribed authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Lochab, Tehsil and District Jind was revenue estate of Village Lochab, Tehsil and District Jind was revenue estate of Village Lochab, Tehsil and District Jind was revenue estate of Village Lochab, Tehsil and District Jind was declared as surplus in the hands of their predecessor declared as surplus in the hands of their predecessor-in-interest interest- Baljora. Challenge was also laid to an order dated 30.05.1991, Baljora. Challenge was also laid to an order dated 30.05.1991, Baljora. Challenge was also laid to an order dated 30.05.1991, Baljora. Challenge was also laid to an order dated 30.05.1991, abovementioned land was ordered by the Prescribed whereby the abovementioned land was ordered by the Prescribed abovementioned land was ordered by the Prescribed whereby SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [2] Authority to be included in the surplus pool besides impugning the Authority to be included in the surplus pool besides impugning the Authority to be included in the surplus pool besides impugning the Authority to be included in the surplus pool besides impugning the ed 06.09.1991 passed by the Collector dismissing the order dated 06.09.1991 passed by the Collector dismissing the ed 06.09.1991 passed by the Collector dismissing the order dat appeal filed by the appellants as well. The appellants also sought filed by the appellants as well. The appellants also sought as well. The appellants also sought permanent injunction praying for restraining respondents No.1 and 2/ permanent injunction praying for restraining respondents No.1 and 2/ permanent injunction praying for restraining respondents No.1 and 2/ permanent injunction praying for restraining respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No.1 defendants No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No. defendants No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No. defendants No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No. from utilizing the suit property and 2’) from utilizing the suit property any further. 3. The primary grouse set up by the appellants was that The primary grouse set up by the appellants was that The primary grouse set up by the appellants was that after submission of submission of declaration form on 12.08.19 6 in terms of declaration form on 12.08.1976 in terms of Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972, Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972, ( (for their predecessor Baljora died on 17.07.1986 short ‘the 1972 Act’), their predecessor Baljora died on 17.07.1986 their predecessor Baljora died on 17.07.1986 short ‘the 197
Facts
and thereafter the appellants along with proforma defendants and thereafter the appellants along with proforma defendants and thereafter the appellants along with proforma defendants and thereafter the appellants along with proforma defendants succeeded the deceased. It was further pleaded that Baljora was succeeded the deceased. It was further pleaded that Baljora was succeeded the deceased. It was further pleaded that Baljora was succeeded the deceased. It was further pleaded that Baljora was declared as big land owner vide order dated 11.12.1990 passed by declared as big land owner vide order dated 11.12.1990 passed by declared as big land owner vide order dated 11.12.1990 passed by declared as big land owner vide order dated 11.12.1990 passed by ed Authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land in his the Prescribed Authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land in his ed Authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land in his the Prescrib hand was declared as surplus followed by aforementioned orders hand was declared as surplus followed by aforementioned orders hand was declared as surplus followed by aforementioned orders hand was declared as surplus followed by aforementioned orders 06.09.1991. The stand taken by the appellants dated 30.05.1991 and 06.09.1991. The stand taken by the appellants 06.09.1991. The stand taken by the appellants dated 30.05.1991 was that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to all the legal heirs was that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to all the legal hei was that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to all the legal hei was that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to all the legal hei in his of deceased Baljora before declaring the suit land as surplus in his of deceased Baljora before declaring the suit land as surplus of deceased Baljora before declaring the suit land as surplus hands; whereas upon his death, the appellants along with proforma hands; whereas upon his death, the appellants along with proforma hands; whereas upon his death, the appellants along with proforma hands; whereas upon his death, the appellants along with proforma defendants having succeeded the deceased, the declaration of defendants having succeeded the deceased, the declaration of defendants having succeeded the deceased, the declaration of defendants having succeeded the deceased, the declaration of g their surplus area was required to be assessed after considering their surplus area was required to be assessed after considerin surplus area was required to be assessed after considerin independent right in the holdings. independent right in the holdings. 4. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit while submitting that deceased Baljora submitted contested the suit while submitting that deceased Baljora submitted contested the suit while submitting that deceased Baljora submitted contested the suit while submitting that deceased Baljora submitted SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [3] his declaration form on 12.08.1976 and showed that he owned 47 his declaration form on 12.08.1976 and show his declaration form on 12.08.1976 and show that he owned 479 kanals and 10 marlas of land which was beyond his permissible kanals and 10 marlas of land which was beyond his permissible kanals and 10 marlas of land which was beyond his permissible kanals and 10 marlas of land which was beyond his permissible were limits. It was also pleaded that after the death of Baljora, notices were limits. It was also pleaded that after the death of Baljora, notices limits. It was also pleaded that after the death of Baljora, notices served upon his legal heirs on 22.08.1990 and in pursuance thereto, served upon his legal heirs on 22.08.1990 and in pursuance thereto, served upon his legal heirs on 22.08.1990 and in pursuance thereto, served upon his legal heirs on 22.08.1990 and in pursuance thereto, one of his sons-Jagbir Singh appeared and participa one of his sons ted in the Jagbir Singh appeared and participated in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority at the time of passing of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority at the time of passing of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority at the time of passing of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority at the time of passing of the order dated 11.02.1990 and thus, the declaration of surplus land the order dated 11.02.1990 and thus, the declaration of surplus land the order dated 11.02.1990 and thus, the declaration of surplus land the order dated 11.02.1990 and thus, the declaration of surplus land in the hands of Baljora was made in the presence of his legal heirs in the hands of Baljora was made in the presence of his legal heirs in the hands of Baljora was made in the presence of his legal heirs in the hands of Baljora was made in the presence of his legal heirs and thus the same was valid and legal in all respects. and thus the same was valid and legal and thus the same was valid and legal 5. Replication was also filed on behalf of the appellants Replication was also filed on behalf of the appellants Replication was also filed on behalf of the appellants the legal heirs of deceased Baljora were not while reiterating that all the legal heirs of deceased Baljora were not the legal heirs of deceased Baljora were not while reiterating that Prescribed granted opportunity to defend themselves before the Prescribed granted opportunity to defend themselves before the granted opportunity to defend themselves before the Authority as notice of proceeding was never Authority as notice of proceeding was never served upon them. 6. Upon pleadings of the parties, following issues were Upon pleadings of the parties, following issues were Upon pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- framed by the trial Court: the orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 “1) Whether the orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 the orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority (S.D.O(C), Jind passed by the Prescribed Authority (S.D.O(C), Jind passed by the Prescribed Authority (S.D.O(C), Jind declaring the suit land surplus in the hands of declaring the suit land surplus in the hands o declaring the suit land surplus in the hands o deceased Baljora and declaring the same in the deceased Baljora and declaring the same in the deceased Baljora and declaring the same in the and the order dated 06.09.1991 passed surplus pool and the order dated 06.09.1991 passed and the order dated 06.09.1991 passed by the Collector, Jind maintaining the correctness or by the Collector, Jind maintaining the correctness or by the Collector, Jind maintaining the correctness or orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 of the orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 of the orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 of the Prescribed Authority are illegal, null and void, not Prescribed Authority are illegal, null and void, not Prescribed Authority are illegal, null and void, not ding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to ding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside, as alleged in the plaintiff? OPP be set aside, as alleged in the plaintiff? OPP SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [4] Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in 2) Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? OPR 3) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD. Section 80 CPC? OPD. Whether the suit has not been filed through a duly 4) Whether the suit has not been filed through a duly Whether the suit has not been filed through a duly authorized person? OPD. authorized person? OPD. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 5) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction? OPD 6) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction? OPD 7) Whether the suit is barred by limi Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 8) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD. 9) Relief.” 7. The The The trial Court vide trial Court vide trial Court vide judgment and decree dated judgment and decree dated judgment and decree dated 10.09.1996 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellants while 10.09.1996 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellants while 10.09.1996 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellants while 10.09.1996 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellants while recording that notices were served upon the legal heirs of deceased recording that notices were served upon the legal heirs of deceased recording that notices were served upon the legal heirs of deceased recording that notices were served upon the legal heirs of deceased Baljora and in pursuance thereof his son Jagbir Singh appeared Baljora and in pursuance thereof his son Jagbir Singh appeared Baljora and in pursuance thereof his son Jagbir Singh appeared Baljora and in pursuance thereof his son Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Authority it was so recorded in the order the Prescribed Authority and it was so recorded in the order it was so recorded in the order dated 11.12.1990. Further, reliance was dated 11.12.1990. Further decision reliance was even placed upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra Vs. Annapurnabai and others, Annapurnabai and others, AIR 1985 SC 1403 , to record that AIR 1985 SC 1403, to record that the legal representatives of Baljora were having no independent right. the legal representatives of Baljora were having no independent right the legal representatives of Baljora were having no independent right the legal representatives of Baljora were having no independent right recorded that the suit filed at the instance of appellants t was also recorded that the suit filed at the instance of appellants recorded that the suit filed at the instance of appellants It was also was not not maintainable before the Civil Court, in terms of statutory bar before the Civil Court, in terms of statutory bar prescribed under Section 26 of the 1972 Act. prescribed under Section 26 of the 1972 A prescribed under Section 26 of the 1972 A 8. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants filed first appeal which Aggrieved thereof, the appellants filed first appeal which Aggrieved thereof, the appellants filed first appeal which was also dismissed while recording that the surplus land was liable to was also dismissed while recording that the surplus land was liable to was also dismissed while recording that the surplus land was liable to was also dismissed while recording that the surplus land was liable to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [5] be determined with reference to the holdings of the original owner be determined with reference to the holdings of the original owner be determined with reference to the holdings of the original owner be determined with reference to the holdings of the original owner who died d after submission of his statement of declaration his land after submission of his statement of declaration qua his land and it was thus not open for his legal heirs to contend that the surplus and it was thus not open for his legal heirs to contend that the surplus and it was thus not open for his legal heirs to contend that the surplus and it was thus not open for his legal heirs to contend that the surplus that each of area should have been determined while considering that each of area should have been determined area should have been determined them was an was an independent tenure holders in his/ her right It was also independent tenure holders in his/ her right. It was also recorded that though service of notice upon two married daughters of recorded that though service of notice upon two married daughters recorded that though service of notice upon two married daughters recorded that though service of notice upon two married daughters Baljora was not , however, as the said issue was not was not effected, however, as the said issue was not , however, as the said issue was not contested before the authorities below, the same was not to be contested before the authorities below, the same was not to be contested before the authorities below, the same was not to be contested before the authorities below, the same was not to be treated as fatal and even no opportunity of heari treated as ng was required to be and even no opportunity of hearing was required to be . Hence the present appeal. granted to the legal representatives. Hence the present appeal. granted t 9. Learned counsel for the appellants while impugning the Learned counsel for the appellants while impugning the Learned counsel for the appellants while impugning the that judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below submitted that judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below the possession of land in question was still wi the possession th the appellants and of land in question was still with the appellants and until the same was taken over by respondents, the land never vested until the same was taken over by respondents, the land never vested until the same was taken over by respondents, the land never vested until the same was taken over by respondents, the land never vested right with them and as such the appellants were having independent right with them and as such the appellants were having with them and as such the appellants were having therein. It was further submitted that the judgment passed in the case therein. It was further submitted that the judgment passed in the case therein. It was further submitted that the judgment passed in the case therein. It was further submitted that the judgment passed in the case of State of Maharashtra (sup was not applicable to the facts and State of Maharashtra (supra) was not applicable to the facts and was not applicable to the facts and to the circumstances of the present case as the same related to the circumstances of the present case as the same circumstances of the present case as the same provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, in the case in hand 1961; whereas the declaration of surplus area in the case in hand 1961; whereas the declaration of surplus area 1961; whereas the declaration of surplus area visions of 1972 Act. In this regard, reliance was also related to the provisions of 1972 Act. In this regard, reliance was also visions of 1972 Act. In this regard, reliance was also related to the pro
Legal Reasoning
placed upon decision made by Full Bench of this Court in the case of placed upon decision made by Full Bench of this Court in the case of placed upon decision made by Full Bench of this Court in the case of placed upon decision made by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sardara Vs. Financial Commissioner and ardara Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and Vs. Financial Commissioner and Learned counsel further argued others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 744. Learned counsel further argued Learned counsel further argued others, 2008 SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [6] the declaration of surplus area by the Prescribed Authority that once the declaration of surplus area by the Prescribed Authority the declaration of surplus area by the Prescribed Authority that once was without effecting service upon two of the married daughters of was without effecting service upon two of the married daughters of was without effecting service upon two of the married daughters of was without effecting service upon two of the married daughters of deceased Baljora, the same being in violation of principles of natural deceased Baljora, the same being in violation of principles of natural deceased Baljora, the same being in violation of principles of natural deceased Baljora, the same being in violation of principles of natural s not to be justice, bar envisaged under Section 26 of the 1972 Act was not to be justice, bar envisaged under Section 26 of the 1972 Act justice, bar envisaged under Section 26 of the 1972 Act made applicable to non-suit the appellants made applicable to non , in view of the laid down suit the appellants, in view of the laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. and the suit could not have been Vinod Kumar, 1986 PLJ 161 and the suit could not have been and the suit could not have been Vinod Kumar, 1986 PLJ 161 t. It was thus pleaded dismissed for want of jurisdiction of Civil Court. It was thus pleaded dismissed for want of jurisdiction of Civil Cour dismissed for want of jurisdiction of Civil Cour that the appeal was required to be allowed. that the appeal was required to be allowed. that the appeal was required to be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents lation of principles of natural justice in submitted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in lation of principles of natural justice in submitted that there was no vio .e. his son, the present case as one of the legal heirs of Baljora i.e. his son, the present case as one of the legal heirs of Baljora i the present case as one of the legal heirs of Baljora i namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Authority and namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Authority and namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Authority and namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Authority and was even represented by a counsel and thus participated in the was even represented by a counsel and thus participated in the was even represented by a counsel and thus participated in the was even represented by a counsel and thus participated in the It was also submitted that Jagbir Singh even filed an proceedings. It was also submitted that Jagbir Singh even filed an It was also submitted that Jagbir Singh even filed an proceedings. there was no violation of appeal before the Court of Collector, thus there was no violation of appeal before the Court of Collector, thus appeal before the Court of Collector, thus principles of natural justice and the suit was rightly held to be not principles of natural justice and the suit was rightly held to be not principles of natural justice and the suit was rightly held to be not principles of natural justice and the suit was rightly held to be not maintainable for want of jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the 1972 maintainable for want of jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the 1972 maintainable for want of jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the 1972 maintainable for want of jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the 1972 Act which reads as under:- Act which reads as under: “26. BAR OF JURISDICTION (1) No Civil Court shall BAR OF JURISDICTION.--(1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to – entertain or proceed with a suit (a) entertain or proceed with a suit entertain or proceed with a suit for specific for specific for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which performance of a contract for transfer of land which performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the affects the right of the State Government to the affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or surplus area under this Act; or SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [7] Settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under (b) Settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under Settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under t required to be settled, decided or dealt with this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with t required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority. the Collector or the Prescribed Authority. No order of (2) No order of No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner, the the the Commissioner, the Col lector, or the Prescribed Commissioner, the Col lector, or the Prescribed Commissioner, the Col lector, or the Prescribed or in pursuance of this Ac shall Authority made under or in pursuance of this Ac shall Authority made under be called in question in any court.” be called in question in any court.” Further reliance was also placed upon the decisions Further reliance was also placed upon the decisions Further reliance was also placed upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Annapurnabai and others, AIR 1984 SC 1403 Annapurnabai and others , AIR 1984 SC 1403 and Bhikoba Bhikoba l (dead) by Lrs. and others Vs. Mohan Lal Shankar Dhumal (dead) by Lrs. and others Vs. Mohan Lal l (dead) by Lrs. and others Vs. Mohan Lal Shankar Dhuma Punchand Tathed and others, (1982) 1 SCC 680 Punchand Tathed and others , to contend that , (1982) 1 SCC 680, to contend that the determination of surplus area was required to be made with the determination of surplus area was required to be made with the determination of surplus area was required to be made with the determination of surplus area was required to be made with reference to the holdings in the hands of landowner reference to the holdings on the in the hands of landowner-Baljora on the was not open to the legal heirs to contend that appointed date and it was not open to the legal heirs to contend that was not open to the legal heirs to contend that appointed date and they having inherited the land after the death of original they having inherited the land holder, thus after the death of original holder, thus the surplus area was required to be determined on the footing that the surplus area was required to be determined on the footing that the surplus area was required to be determined on the footing that the surplus area was required to be determined on the footing that each of them being an independent tenure holder was having his/ her each of them being an independent tenure holder was having his/ her each of them being an independent tenure holder was having his/ her each of them being an independent tenure holder was having his/ her separate . It was thus submitted that in view of the eparate right therein. It was thus submitted that in view of the . It was thus submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, the appeal was required to be dismissed. appeal was required to be dismissed. 11. and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties ll as records of the Courts below. through the paper-book as well as records of the Courts below. through the paper 12. Before going into the merits of the controversy, it may be Before going into the merits of the controversy, it may be Before going into the merits of the controversy, it may be essential to have a close look at the relevant provisions of 1972 Act. essential to have a close look at the relevant provisions of 1972 Act. essential to have a close look at the relevant provisions of 1972 Act. essential to have a close look at the relevant provisions of 1972 Act. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [8] For convenience, Sections 9 (1), 10, 11 (1) and 12(1) of the 1972 Act For convenience, Sections 9 (1), 10, 11 (1) and 12(1) of the 1972 Act For convenience, Sections 9 (1), 10, 11 (1) and 12(1) of the 1972 Act For convenience, Sections 9 (1), 10, 11 (1) and 12(1) of the 1972 Act are extracted hereunder:- are extracted “9(1). Selection of permissible area and persons Selection of permissible area and persons Selection of permissible area and persons required to furnish declaration— (1) required to furnish declaration Every person, who on the appointed day or at any time person, who on the appointed day or at any time person, who on the appointed day or at any time thereafter holds land exceeding the permissible area, thereafter holds land exceeding the permissible area, thereafter holds land exceeding the permissible area, ate shall [within a period of three months from such date shall [within a period of three months from such d as the State Government may, by notification, specify as the State Government may, by notification, specify as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf] or subsequent acquisition of land, in this behalf] or subsequent acquisition of land, in this behalf] or subsequent acquisition of land, furnish furnish furnish to to to the prescribed authority a declaration the prescribed authority a declaration the prescribed authority a declaration supported by an affidavit giving the particulars of all supported by an affidavit giving the particulars of all supported by an affidavit giving the particulars of all the prescribed his land and that of the separate unit in the prescribed his land and that of the separate unit in form and manner and stating therein his selection of form and manner and stating therein his selection of form and manner and stating therein his selection of the parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in the the parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in the the parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in the aggregate: Provided that in case of a member of the Armed Provided that in case of a member of the Armed Provided that in case of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, the last date for furnishing the Forces of the Union, the last date for furnishing the Forces of the Union, the last date for furnishing the declaration shall be the 31st October, 1976. declaration shall be the Section 10: Selection of permissible area by prescribed Selection of permissible area by prescribed Selection of permissible area by prescribed If a person fails to select the permissible authority. - If a person fails to select the permissible If a person fails to select the permissible area in accordance with the provisions of section 9, area in accordance with the provisions of section 9, area in accordance with the provisions of section 9, the prescribed authority may, after collecting the the prescribed authority may, after collecting the the prescribed authority may, after collecting the such manner as it may deem fit, by information in such manner as it may deem fit, by such manner as it may deem fit, by order select the permissible area of such person : order select the permissible area of such person : Provided that no such order shall be made without Provided that no such order shall be made without Provided that no such order shall be made without giving all persons interested an opportunity of giving all persons interested an opportunity of giving all persons interested an opportunity of Emphasis supplied) being heard.(Emphasis supplied) Section 11: Statement of permissible an d surplus Statement of permissible and surplus (1) On the basis of information given in the areas.— (1) On the basis of information given in the (1) On the basis of information given in the declaration or such information, as may be obtained, declaration or such information, as may be obtained, declaration or such information, as may be obtained, the prescribed authority shall prepare a statement in the prescribed authority shall prepare a statement in the prescribed authority shall prepare a statement in the manner prescribed showing, among other the manner prescribed showing, among other the manner prescribed showing, among other r held by a particulars, the total area of land owned or held by a particulars, the total area of land owned o SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [9] person and the separate unit, their permissible area person and the separate unit, their permissible area person and the separate unit, their permissible area and the surplus area. Section 12: Vesting of surplus area The surplus area Vesting of surplus area—(1) The surplus area of a landowner shall, [from the date on which it is of a landowner shall, [from the date on which it is of a landowner shall, [from the date on which it is declared as such shall be deemed to have been declared as such shall be deemed to have been declared as such shall be deemed to have been e State Government for a public acquired by the State Government for a public e State Government for a public purpose] and all rights, title and interest (including the purpose] and all rights, title and interest (including the purpose] and all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of all custom or usage for the time being in force) of all custom or usage for the time being in force) of all persons in such area shall stand extinguished and persons in such area shall stand extinguished and persons in such area shall stand extinguished and , title and interest shall vest in the State such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State , title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from any encumbrance : Government free from any encumbrance : Provided Provided Provided that where any that where any that where any land within land within land within the the the permissible area of the mortgagor is mortgaged with permissible area of the mortgagor is mortgaged with permissible area of the mortgagor is mortgaged with possession and falls within the surplus area of the possession and falls within the surplus area of the possession and falls within the surplus area of the mortgagee, only mortgagee, only mortgagee rights shall be the mortgagee rights shall be the deemed deemed deemed to have been acquired by to have been acquired by to have been acquired by the State the State the State Government and the same shall vest in it.” Government and the same shall vest in it.” Perusal of the aforementioned provisions reflects that the the aforementioned provisions reflects that the area of a land owner shall become surplus from the date on which it a land owner shall become surplus from the date on which it land owner shall become surplus from the date on which it uch and the same then shall deemed to have been is declared as such and the same then shall deemed to have been uch and the same then shall deemed to have been is declared as s acquired by the State Government for public purpose. The same to acquired by the State Government for public purpose. The same to acquired by the State Government for public purpose. The same to acquired by the State Government for public purpose. The same to land owner happen under Section 9 (1) of the 1972 Act, either the land owner happen under Section 9 (1) of the 1972 Act, either the happen under Section 9 (1) of the 1972 Act, either the has to himself give particulars of all his land in a prescribed form has to himself give particulars of all his land in a prescribed form has to himself give particulars of all his land in a prescribed form has to himself give particulars of all his land in a prescribed form d by an affidavit stating therein his selection of parcel or supported by an affidavit stating therein his selection of parcel or d by an affidavit stating therein his selection of parcel or supporte parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate the permissible area or in parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate the permissible area or in parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate the permissible area or in parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate the permissible area or in case one fails to select the permissible area in accordance with the case one fails to select the permissible area in accordance with the case one fails to select the permissible area in accordance with the case one fails to select the permissible area in accordance with the ter collecting provisions of Section 9, the Prescribed Authority may after collecting provisions of Section 9, the Prescribed Authority may af provisions of Section 9, the Prescribed Authority may af information in such manner as it may deem fit, by order select the information in such manner as it may deem fit, by order select the information in such manner as it may deem fit, by order select the information in such manner as it may deem fit, by order select the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [10] permissible area of such person, however, for doing so all persons permissible area of such person, however, for doing so all persons permissible area of such person, however, for doing so all persons permissible area of such person, however, for doing so all persons interested are required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. interested are required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard interested are required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard interested are required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard rmation given in the declaration t is thereafter on the basis of information given in the declaration rmation given in the declaration It is thereafter on the basis of info from by the landowner himself or by the landowner himself or any such information collected by any such information collected by the Prescribed Authority on its own, a statement in the manner the Prescribed Authority on its own, a statement in the manner the Prescribed Authority on its own, a statement in the manner the Prescribed Authority on its own, a statement in the manner permissible area and surplus area is prescribed, mentioning the permissible area and surplus area is permissible area and surplus area is prescribed, mentioning Sections 9 & 10 of the 1972 Act prepared. Cumulative analysis of Sections 9 & 10 of the 1972 Act Sections 9 & 10 of the 1972 Act prepared. further makes it clear that either before declaration of surplus area of further makes it clear that either before declaration of surplus area of further makes it clear that either before declaration of surplus area of further makes it clear that either before declaration of surplus area of a person one has to be given a chance to furnish the particulars of all a person one has to be given a chance to furnish the particulars of all a person one has to be given a chance to furnish the particulars of all a person one has to be given a chance to furnish the particulars of all n or in case land holdings and select the permissible area on his own or in case land holdings and select the permissible area on his ow land holdings and select the permissible area on his ow one fails to select the permissible area, the Prescribed Authority has one fails to select the permissible area, the Prescribed Authority has one fails to select the permissible area, the Prescribed Authority has one fails to select the permissible area, the Prescribed Authority has to do it after granting opportunity of hearing to all persons interested. to do it after granting opportunity of hearing to all persons interested. to do it after granting opportunity of hearing to all persons interested. to do it after granting opportunity of hearing to all persons interested. 13. the present case, once Baljora after Accordingly, in the present case, once Baljora after the present case, once Baljora after submission of his declaration submission of his declaration submission of his declaration .08.1976 died on form on 12.08.1976 died on form form 17.07.1986, the proceedings being admittedly pending consideration 17.07.1986, the proceedings being admittedly pending consideration 17.07.1986, the proceedings being admittedly pending consideration 17.07.1986, the proceedings being admittedly pending consideration with with , the Prescribed Authority, the Prescribed Authority his the appellants being his the appellants being legal legal representatives and successors having inherited the estate representatives were and successors having inherited the estate were required to be afforded opportunity of hearing required to be afforded opportunity before preparing the of hearing before preparing the permissible area and surplus area. statement regarding the permissible area and surplus area. statement regarding 14. As per case set up by the respondents, the Prescribed the respondents, the Prescribed Authority in the pending proceedings upon coming to know about the Authority in the pending proceedings upon coming to know about the Authority in the pending proceedings upon coming to know about the Authority in the pending proceedings upon coming to know about the death of Baljora issued notices to his legal repr death of Baljor esentatives for issued notices to his legal representatives for produced as Ex.D3 in the 10.09.1990. Admittedly, as per the record produced as Ex.D3 in the 10.09.1990. Admittedly, as per the record 10.09.1990. Admittedly, as per the record shape of service report, notices were never served upon Santosh and shape of service report, notices were never served upon Santosh and shape of service report, notices were never served upon Santosh and shape of service report, notices were never served upon Santosh and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [11] Mayawati i.e. the two married daughters of Baljore who were stated Mayawati i.e. the two married daughters of Baljore who were stated Mayawati i.e. the two married daughters of Baljore who were stated Mayawati i.e. the two married daughters of Baljore who were stated ouse. This fact of notices been not to be residing in their matrimonial house. This fact of notices been not ouse. This fact of notices been not to be residing in their matrimonial h served upon Santosh and Mayawati was even admitted by DW- served upon Santosh and Mayawati was even admitted by DW served upon Santosh and Mayawati was even admitted by DW served upon Santosh and Mayawati was even admitted by DW arnek Singh (Peshi Kanungo). Mere fact that one of the sons of Harnek Singh (Peshi Kanungo). Mere fact that one of the sons of arnek Singh (Peshi Kanungo). Mere fact that one of the sons of arnek Singh (Peshi Kanungo). Mere fact that one of the sons of Baljora, namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Baljora, namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Baljora, namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed Baljora, namely, Jagbir Singh appeared before the Prescribed in his Authority and the declaration of surplus area been made in his Authority and the declaration of surp Authority and the declaration of surp vide order dated 11.12.1990, was not sufficient and legal to presence vide order dated 11.12.1990, was not sufficient and legal to vide order dated 11.12.1990, was not sufficient and legal to presence their own bind his two major married sisters who were having their own bind his two major married sisters who bind his two major married sisters who independent and separate rights being legal heirs of deceased independent and separate rights being legal heirs of deceased independent and separate rights being legal heirs of deceased independent and separate rights being legal heirs of deceased Baljora qua the declaration of surplus are Baljora qua pending declaration of surplus area which was pending adjudication before the Prescribed Authority. adjudication before the Prescribed Authority. adjudication before the Prescribed Authority. 15. Furthermore, the reliance placed upon by the Courts Furthermore, the reliance placed upon by the Courts Furthermore, the reliance placed upon by the Courts below on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of below on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of below on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of below on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Mohan Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Mohan Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Mohan Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed and others, Lal Puncha , which was nd Tathed and others, AIR 1982 SC 865, which was further further further followed followed followed in in in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. the case of the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Annapurnabai, AIR 1982 SC 1403 Annapurnabai , AIR 1982 SC 1403 was misplaced as tho ose were based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of decisions were based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of were based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of decisions Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, more than the permissible area was wherein any person having land more than the permissible area was more than the permissible area was wherein not to remain its owner to remain its owner right on the appointed day under the said Act; on the appointed day under the said Act; hand, as already said, as per the provisions of whereas on the other hand, as already said, as per the provisions of hand, as already said, as per the provisions of whereas on the othe beyond ceiling limits was to be beyond ceiling limits was to 1972 Act, the area of any person beyond ceiling limits was to 1972 Act, the area of any treated as surplus only from the date it was treated as declared by the surplus only from the date it was so declared by the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [12] Prescribed Authority and the same was thereafter deemed to Prescribed Authority and the same was ther Prescribed Authority and the same was ther eafter deemed to be vested with the State Government. This issue was even dealt with by vested with the State Government. This issue was even dealt with by vested with the State Government. This issue was even dealt with by vested with the State Government. This issue was even dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh’s a Full Bench of this Court in case (supra). Though Sardara Singh’s case (supra). Though The Punjab Security of the said discussion related to provisions of The Punjab Security of the said discussion related to provisions the said discussion related to provisions Land Tenures Act, 1953, however, the same being almost pa Land Tenures Act, 1953, however, Land Tenures Act, 1953, however, ari- materia with those under the 1972 Act, cover the controversy with those under the 1972 Act, cover the controversy with those under the 1972 Act, cover the controversy involved in the present case, on all fours. Relevant para involved in the present case, o.42 from on all fours. Relevant para No.42 from Sardara Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced hereunder: Sardara Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- Resultantly, where the surplus area has not been “42. Resultantly, where the surplus area has not been Resultantly, where the surplus area has not been finally determined, and the matter is pending in finally determined, and the matter is pending in finally determined, and the matter is pending in appeals or revisions before the Revenue Courts or appeals or revisions before the Revenue Courts or appeals or revisions before the Revenue Courts or of the Constitution, before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, before this Court under or before the Supreme Court of India, death of the or before the Supreme Court of India, death of the or before the Supreme Court of India, death of the landowner would cause affectation of surplus area landowner would cause affectation of surplus area landowner would cause affectation of surplus area which would be required to be redetermined in the which would be required to be redetermined in the which would be required to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner. Such hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner. Such hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner. Such usly construct the an interpretation would harmoniously construct the an interpretation would harmonio provisions of Section 11(5) and also give a Section 11(5) and 11(7) and also give a proper interpretation to both the views expressed in proper interpretation to both the views expressed in proper interpretation to both the views expressed in Ajit Kaur's case. Howev er, we are unable to uphold However, we are unable to uphold 's case the judgments of this Court in Jasbir Kaur's case the judgments of this Court in because Ajit Kaur's case was not at all considered by because Ajit Kaur's case was not at all considered by because Ajit Kaur's case was not at all considered by As regards Manjit Kaur's the Hon'ble Division Bench. As regards Manjit Kaur's the Hon'ble Division Bench. it Kaur's case was considered, case, even though Ajit Kaur's case was considered, case, even though Aj the majority view had been entirely overlooked.” the majority view had been entirely overlooked. The abovesaid observations were The abovesaid observations were The abovesaid observations were followed by a followed by followed by while dealing with the provisions Coordinate Bench of this Court even while dealing with the provisions while dealing with the provisions Coordinate Bench of this Court of 1972 Act in the case of Rajinder Singh (since deceased) of 1972 Act Rajinder Singh (since deceased) Rajinder Singh (since deceased) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [13] 2018(2) RCR rough LRs Vs. State of Haryana, reported as 2018(2) RCR rough LRs Vs. State of Haryana through LRs Vs. State of Haryana (Civil)184 . Paragraph 28 thereof being relevant is reproduced 184. Paragraph 28 thereof being relevant is reproduced . Paragraph 28 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder for reference:- hereunder for reference: There is another aspect of the matter. The “28. There is another aspect of the matter. The There is another aspect of the matter. The original landowner had also died and, therefore, original landowner had also died and, therefore, original landowner had also died and, therefore, ratio decidendi culled out by the in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the ratio decidendi culled out by the Full Bench in Sardara Singh's case (supra), the Full Bench in Sardara Singh's case (supra), the Full Bench in Sardara Singh's case (supra), the matter qua determination of the permissible matter qua determination of the permissible matter qua determination of the permissible area at the hands of the legal heirs of a big area at the hands of the legal heirs of a big area at the hands of the legal heirs of a big landowner has to be determined afresh. In other landowner has to be determined afresh. In other landowner has to be determined afresh. In other words, words, in view of in view of the pendency of the pendency of he t the proceedings relating to determination of surplus proceedings relating to determination of surplus proceedings relating to determination of surplus area in the hands of the landowner, surplus area area in the hands of the landowner, surplus area area in the hands of the landowner, surplus area would have to be assessed afresh in the hands would have to be assessed afresh in the hands would have to be assessed afresh in the hands of the present petitioners, who are legal heirs of of the present petitioners, who are legal heirs of of the present petitioners, who are legal heirs of the big landowner.” the big landowner. 16. ound in the submission Additionally, no merit can be found in the submission Additionally, no merit can be f made by learned State counsel that the suit filed by the appellants made by learned State counsel that the suit filed by the appellants made by learned State counsel that the suit filed by the appellants made by learned State counsel that the suit filed by the appellants could not be entertained in view of specific bar laid down under could not be entertained in view of specific bar laid down under could not be entertained in view of specific bar laid down under could not be entertained in view of specific bar laid down under Section 26 of the 1972 Act. In this regard, it may be pointed out here Section 26 of the 1972 Act. In this regard, it may be pointed out here Section 26 of the 1972 Act. In this regard, it may be pointed out here Section 26 of the 1972 Act. In this regard, it may be pointed out here that once the orders dated 11.12.1990 that once the and 30.05.1991 passed by the 2.1990 and 30.05.1991 passed by the in violation of principles of natural justice Prescribed Authorities were in violation of principles of natural justice in violation of principles of natural justice Prescribed Authorities , without affording embodied under the statutory scheme of 1972 Act, without affording embodied under the statutory scheme of 1972 Act embodied under the statutory scheme of 1972 Act , who opportunity of hearing to appellants No.2 and 3 in particular, who opportunity of hearing to appellants No.2 and 3 opportunity of hearing to appellants No.2 and 3 happened to be LRs of deceased Baljora, the proceedings whereby happened to be LRs of deceased Baljora, the proceedings whereby happened to be LRs of deceased Baljora, the proceedings whereby happened to be LRs of deceased Baljora, the proceedings whereby deceased predecessor was declared the land in the hands of their deceased predecessor was declared deceased predecessor was declared the land in the hands of particularly when the effect of such surplus were wholly vitiated particularly when the effect of such particularly when the effect of such surplus were wholly SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [14] nfact depriving ers caused substantial prejudice to their rights; infact depriving ers caused substantial prejudice to their rights; i orders caused substantial prejudice to their rights; i them of the subject property. Support in this regard can also be them of the subject property. Support in this regard can also be them of the subject property. Support in this regard can also be them of the subject property. Support in this regard can also be drawn from a Full Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar’s drawn from a Full Bench decision of this Court in drawn from a Full Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar’s case (supra) , and for convenience, relevant portion therefrom is (supra), and for convenience, relevant portion therefrom is , and for convenience, relevant portion therefrom is extracted hereunder:- extracted hereunder: e Civil Court to tray the suits “…The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to tray the suits “…The jurisdiction of th against the orders passed by the Tribunal of Special against the orders passed by the Tribunal of Special against the orders passed by the Tribunal of Special the provisions of the Jurisdiction in violation of the provisions of the Jurisdiction in violation of statute or principles of natural justice was thus statute or principles of natural justice was thus statute or principles of natural justice was thus upheld even though the jurisdiction of Civil Court to upheld even though the jurisdiction of Civil Court to upheld even though the jurisdiction of Civil Court to ality or validity of the orders of the question the legality or validity of the orders of the ality or validity of the orders of the Tribunal was expressly barred by the statute….” Tribunal was expressly barred by the statute….” 17. Thus, view of in view of detailed discussion made the detailed discussion made the hereinabove, findings, orders dated hereinabove, 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 findings, orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 of principles of passed by the prescribed authority being in violation of principles of passed by the prescribed authority being in violation passed by the prescribed authority being in violation natural justice and in deprivation of an opportunity of hearing to the natural justice and in deprivation of an opportunity of hearing to the natural justice and in deprivation of an opportunity of hearing to the natural justice and in deprivation of an opportunity of hearing to the two daughters of Baljora, namely, Santosh and Mayawati two daughter , the same Santosh and Mayawati, the same passed in derogation of the procedure and safeguards provided been passed in derogation of the procedure and safeguards provided passed in derogation of the procedure and safeguards provided passed in derogation of the procedure and safeguards provided null, void and inoperative. under 1972 Act, are hereby declared null, void and inoperative. under 1972 Act, are hereby declared under 1972 Act, are hereby declared Resultantly, the subsequently proceedings in the form of order dated Resultantly, the subsequently proceedings in the form of order dated Resultantly, the subsequently proceedings in the form of order dated Resultantly, the subsequently proceedings in the form of order dated Collector are also 06.09.1991 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Collector are also 06.09.1991 passed by the Appellate Authority 06.09.1991 passed by the Appellate Authority held to be illegal. held to be illegal. 18. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees dated impugned 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 ents and decrees dated 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 are hereby set aside. The Prescribed passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The Prescribed are hereby set aside. The Prescribed passed by the Courts below SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-367 367-1999 (O&M) [15] Authority shall now proceed afresh to determine the surplus area in Authority shall now proceed afresh to determine the surplus area in Authority shall now proceed afresh to determine the surplus area in Authority shall now proceed afresh to determine the surplus area in the hands of the appellants/ legal heirs of deceased Baljora, in the hands of the appellants/ legal heirs of deceased Baljora, in the hands of the appellants/ legal heirs of deceased Baljora, in the hands of the appellants/ legal heirs of deceased Baljora, in with law after affording them opportunity of hearing and accordance with law after affording them opportunity of hearing and with law after affording them opportunity of hearing and accordance in consonance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in consonance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in consonance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in consonance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged under the provisions of 1972 Act and till then the appellants are under the provisions of 1972 Act and till then the appellants are under the provisions of 1972 Act and till then the appellants are under the provisions of 1972 Act and till then the appellants are granted consequential decree of granted consequential decree permanent injunction thereby thereby aining respondents No.1 and 2 from dispossessing them over the restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from dispossessing them over the aining respondents No.1 and 2 from dispossessing them over the aining respondents No.1 and 2 from dispossessing them over the land in question. land in question. 19. All pending application(s), All pending application(s), All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand if any, shall also stand if any, shall also stand
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. 13.02.2025 .2025 sanjay ( HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document