State of Haryana v. The Delhi Pinjra Society Etc

IN T

State of Haryana The Delhi Pinjra

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

For

Mr

Mr

For MANDEEP PA

1.

State of Haryan whereby the sui Pole Society (R defendant–State Brief Facts

2.

the plaintiff–soc permanent injun possession of th Rakanpur, Tehs THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da a

VERSUS a Pole Society

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryan r the appellant. r. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with r. Vidul Kapoor and Mr. Adarsh r the respondents. -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second Appe na, assailing the concurrent find it instituted by the respondent– Registered Gaushala), has been d e. e brief facts, as borne out from t ciety instituted a suit for decla nction, seeking a declaration to he land situated in village Chha sil Ballabhgarh, District Faridab

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2366-1994 (O&M) served on:-15.09.2025 ate of Decision : 16.09.2025

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU na h Jain, Advocate eal has been filed by the appella dings recorded by the Courts bel –plaintiff, namely the Delhi Pinj decreed in its favour and against the pleadings of the parties, are t aration with consequential relief o the effect that it is the owner ainsa Walipur Dulehpur and vill bad, as fully detailed in the pla

- ant– low jara that f of r in lage aint,

and further that or from allotting registered body, time was Shri P breeding pedigr registered with also with the De the society has b possession of l villages, as refle

79.

3.

It w purchased by th Bishan Saroop,

08.03.1913, but their individua management of utilised the inco Haryana Ceiling were stated to individual, but exempted under Collector, First 375 acres of its Holdings Act. T the defendant–State be restrain g the same to any other person. I , commonly known as a Gausha Padam Chand. The society, it wa ree cows and to provide shelter the Central Council of Gosarve elhi Gaushala Sangh, Kishangan been in existence for more than a land measuring 1363 kanals 9 ected in the Jamabandis for the y was further pleaded that the lan he office bearers of the societ from Mrs. Victoria Angrum th the purchase was always for the al capacity. The society alon the land, either directly or throu ome thereof for the purposes of t g of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (h be inapplicable since the land belongs to a religious and ch r Section 5 of the said Act. The Grade, Ballabhgarh, issued a n land surplus under Section 12( The said notice, according to th

ned from dispossessing it therefr It was pleaded that the plaintiff ala, and its Secretary at the relev as averred, has been established r to old and infirm cattle. It sta ardhana, Government of India, nj, Delhi. According to the plaint a hundred years and is the owne 9 marlas situated in the afores years 1975–76, 1977–78 and 197 nd in question had originally b ty, namely Shiv Shankar Das hrough a registered sale deed da e benefit of the society and neve ne has been in possession a ugh its tenants, and has continuou the Gaushala. The provisions of hereinafter referred to as, 'the A is neither held nor owned by haritable institution, thereby be e society alleged that the Assist notice dated 02.05.1988, declar 3) of the Haryana Ceiling on L he plaintiff, was illegal and with

- rom is a vant for ands tiff, er in said 78– een ated er in usly f the Act') y an eing tant ring

jurisdiction, for similar notice representation, possession and 250 cows in th agricultural farm and even sough acres in favour constrained the p

4.

Up filing a written of the land in di already been de

29.11.1963 unde and consequentl possession ever Shri Shiv Shank which had been any other person was in possessi possession as a t

5.

had initially bee the Financial Co records, the pla r no land belonging to a Gaush issued earlier in 1981 in resp been withdrawn by the author despite the fact that income w he Gaushala at Kishanganj, D m in village Chhainsa, the auth ht to effect a change of owners of the defendant–State. The said plaintiff to approach the Civil Co on notice, the defendant–State a statement. It was denied that the spute. The stand of the State was eclared surplus by the Collector er Section 10-A of the Punjab S ly vested in the State of Haryana since. It was asserted that the p kar, son of Jawala Parshad, resid n declared surplus on 29.11.196 n acquired any title or right ther ion, the same was illegal and u tress-passer. e defendant–State further plead en imposed upon the utilisation o ommissioner, Haryana, vide lette aintiff–society was shown as b

hala could be declared surplus pect of the same land had, up rities. Despite being in continu as being devoted to maintain o Delhi, and about 150 cows at horities again initiated proceedi ship and sanction mutation of 3 d action, being arbitrary and illeg ourt. appeared and contested the claim e plaintiff was owner in possess s that land measuring 375 acres h Agrarian, Palwal, vide order da ecurity of Land Tenures Act, 19 a, which has been in ownership previous owner of the land was dent of Delhi, and it was his hold

¶3Neither the plaintiff–society reafter. If at all the plaintiff–soci unauthorized, amounting merely ded that although some restricti of the land, the same were lifted er dated 22.01.1968. In the reven being in possession through S

- . A pon uous over its ings gal, m by sion had ated 953, one ding nor iety y to ons d by nue

Shankar, and the Ceiling on Lan exemption unde actually running cows had been provisions. It w Gaushala purpo the surplus land Assistant Collec with law. The maintainability as well as the ba

6.

Rep controverting th

7.

On

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. OP

7.

8.

Bot erefore the case fell within the a nd Holdings Act, 1972, disent er Section 5 of the said Act. It w g any Gaushala on the suit land kept on the pretext of running was contended that 60 acres of l oses by the Government, and the d, was competent to use it in any ctor, Ballabhgarh, was stated to e defendant raised several p of the suit, locus standi of the p ar of jurisdiction of the Civil Cou plication was filed by the p he pleas raised by the defendant. n the basis of pleadings, the trial C Whether plaintiff is owner in Whether Civil Court has got suit? OPD Whether plaintiff has no locu Whether plaintiff has no caus Whether suit is not maintaina Whether suit is bad for non-PD Relief. th the parties have led their respe

ambit of Section 5-A of the Hary titling the plaintiff from claim as also denied that the plaintiff w d, alleging instead that only 15– a Gaushala so as to avoid ceil land had already been reserved e State, being the rightful owner y manner. The notice issued by o be valid, legal and in accorda preliminary objections regard plaintiff, absence of cause of acti urt. plaintiff reiterating its claim Court framed the following issue n possession of suit land? OPP t no jurisdiction to entertain and us-standi to bring the suit?OPD se of action? OPD able in the present form? OPD -joinder and mis-joinder of parti ective evidence.

- yana ming was –20 ling for r of ance ding ion, es:- d try ies?

Findings of the

9.

that copies of Ja Girdawaris Ex.P of Delhi Pinjar names of tenan supported the ca the land was de was not substa testimony of D declared surplus (Ex.D1), and ini later withdrawn

10.

defendant, nam Khasra Girdawa to be recorded i Ram Sukh appe of the land had b Agrarian's orde plaintiff–society

11.

that the society was rejected, as revenue entries, e Trial Court e learned trial Court, upon appr amabandis Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and E P10, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 reflecte ra Pole Society (Registered), w nts such as Khudkast Makbuja ase of the plaintiff. On the other eclared surplus and had since v antiated by any convincing evi DW1 Chander Bhan, Patwari, s by the Collector Agrarian, Pa itially vested in the State, yet the , as reflected from Ex.D2. e Court noted that as per re mely Khasra Girdawari for the ari (Ex.D4) and copy of mutation in the name of the plaintiff–soc ared in the cultivation column. It been sanctioned in favour of the er dated 24.05.1984, but despite y continued to be reflected as ow e plea of the defendant that Shi had been formed only to save s no evidence had been produce , Shiv Shankar was mentioned a

reciation of the evidence, observ Ex.P11 as well as copies of Kha ed the ownership column in fav while in the column of cultivat a Malkan appeared. These entr hand, the plea of the defendant t vested in the Haryana Governm idence. It stood proved from that although the land had b alwal, vide order dated 29.11.19 e instructions for its utilisation w evenue records produced by year 1985–86 (Ex.D3), copy n (Ex.D5), the ownership continu ciety while names of Cheti Lal t was further revealed that mutat e State in pursuance of the Collec this, in all revenue documents wner. iv Shankar was the true owner the land from surplus proceedi ed to establish this claim. In cert as 'Mohtamim' of the society, i

- ved asra vour tion ries that ment een were y of ued tion ctor ings tain i.e.,

the Manager, bu inevitable that th

12.

declared surplu subsequently w and was being Haryana Ceiling not apply to lan nature existing institution, was himself in his o had been registe utilised for Gau long as it contin

13.

On the owner in po the plaintiff to interfering in su Findings of the

14.

Fee learned lower A appeal and affirm Government Ple was complied w purposes, the qu ut nowhere was he shown as th he plaintiff–society was the own e trial Court further observed th us and directions for its utilisa ithdrawn by Ex.D2 as the land used for a Gaushala. Reliance g on Land Holdings Act, 1972, nd belonging to any religious o prior to commencement of the covered by this exemption. Th order dated 30.10.1982 (Ex.PX) ered prior to commencement of t shala purposes, and hence was e nued to be used for that purpose. n these findings, the trial Court ssession of the suit land, and acc o be owner in possession and uch possession. e First Appellate Court eling aggrieved, the defendant Appellate Court, upon reapprecia med the findings of the trial Cou eader had conceded that till ord with and so long as the land con uestion of taking it back from th

he owner. Thus, the conclusion w ner of the suit land. hat though the land had once b ation had been issued, these w belonged to a religious institut was placed on Section 5-A of , which provides that the Act sh or charitable institution of a pub e Act. A Gaushala, being such he Collector Agrarian, Ballabhga recorded that the plaintiff–soci the Act and that the land was be exempted from surplus utilisation held that the plaintiff–society w cordingly decreed the suit declar d restraining the defendant fr t–State preferred an appeal. T ation of the evidence, dismissed urt. It was observed that the learn der Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.19 ntinued to be utilised for Gaush he plaintiff–society would not ar

- was een were tion hall blic h an arh, iety eing n so was ring rom ned hala

The stand taken pleadings. Impo order Ex.PC/E Ballabhgarh, wa filed against the noticed that the therefore the p dismissed.

15.

Wh concurrent findi land had been Subsequently, o land from utilis Scheme, 1976, recorded that in proceed under l Faridabad, to su examine whethe Gaushala purpo

16.

Pur inspected the s noting that as p Chhainsa farm. agricultural use kept reserved fo n by the State in appeal was foun ortantly, it was noted that it wa Ex.PX dated 30.10.1982 pass as not binding, nor was it conten e said order. Thus, the order h e land was continuously being u plea of the State was untenab hen the present RSA was fil ings, this Court by order dated declared surplus on 29.11.19 on 30.10.1982, order Ex.PC/Ex.P sation under the Haryana Utilis so long as it was used for G the event of deviation of user, th law. Accordingly, this Court d ubmit a report regarding the pre er during the last ten years the ses. rsuant thereto, the Deputy Comm site on 07.08.2024. The report per the Veterinary Surgeon, 26 . It was further reported that , being leased out for cultivatio or cow grazing. The report concl

nd to be inconsistent with its ear as never the case of the State t sed by the Collector Agrari nded that any appeal had ever b had attained finality. It was furt utilised for Gaushala purposes, ble. The appeal was accordin led by the State challenging

16.05.2024 noticed that though 63, the same was never utilis PX had been passed exempting sation of Surplus and Other Ar Gaushala purposes. It was furt he Government would be entitled directed the Deputy Commission esent utilisation of the land and land had continued to be used missioner along with other offic t dated 23.08.2024 was submit 674 cows were maintained at 1288 acres of land were un on of crops, and no land had b luded that since the land was be

- rlier that ian, een ther ngly sed. reas ther d to ner, d to for ials tted nder een

leased out for co ought to be initi

17.

Up said report. In sheets, the soci agricultural lan income from the maintenance of emphasized that all income was was made to the expenditure on instance, in 201 maintenance wa deficits were rec that leasing land purposes, and th 5-A of the 1972 Conclusion

18.

Hav below, the repo Court is of the appreciation of e held that the pla land stands exem ommercial purposes, proceeding ated. on receipt of notice, the plaint its detailed affidavit supported iety pointed out that it has bee d in Haryana including village e land, whether by cultivation or f the Gaushalas at Chhainsa t leasing land for agriculture doe channelled towards fodder, fee e audited accounts for the period maintenance of cows far exc 3–14 the lease income was Rs.4 as Rs.1,06,38,074/-, leaving a corded in every subsequent year d for agriculture could not be equ hat the society remained squarel Act. ving considered the rival subm ort of the Deputy Commissione e opinion that the concurrent evidence. The trial Court as well aintiff–society is the owner in p mpt under Section 5-A of the H

gs for declaring 915 acres as surp tiff–society filed objections to d by audited accounts and bala en registered since 1933 and ow es Makhanpur and Chhainsa. T r by lease, is wholly devoted to and Kishanganj, Delhi. It w es not amount to commercial use ed, and upkeep of cows. Refere 2013–2023, which showed that eeded the income from land. 41,66,327/-, whereas expenditure deficit of Rs.86,50,912/-. Sim r up to 2022–23. Thus, it was urg uated with diversion to commer ly within the exemption of Sect missions, the findings of the Cou er and the objections thereto, t findings are based upon pro l as the first Appellate Court righ possession of the land and that Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdi

- plus ance wns was e, as ence For e on milar ged cial tion urts this oper htly

Act, 1972, being Gaushala.

19.

Commissioner's leased for agri Gaushala, the audited account entire income ha has consistently

30.10.1982 (Ex. is used for Gaus

20.

In v be entitled to ex 915 acres shoul of the Courts be

21.

Acc is dismissed.

22.

Pen

September 16, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh g devoted to a religious/charitab e reliance placed by the ap s report does not advance its c iculture, so long as the incom purpose remains religious/char ts filed by the society for the l as been consumed in maintenan y exceeded income. The order .PC/Ex.PX), which exempted th shala purposes, has attained final view of the above, it is held tha xemption under Section 5-A of d be declared surplus cannot be elow call for no interference. cordingly, the Regular Second A nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ble purpose, namely maintenance ppellant–State upon the Dep case. Even if land is cultivated me is devoted exclusively to ritable and not commercial. T last ten years substantiate that nce of cows, and in fact expendit r of the Collector Agrarian da he land from utilisation so long a lity and binds the State. at the plaintiff–society continues the Act. The plea of the State t sustained. The concurrent findi Appeal filed by the State of Hary stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- e of puty d or ture ated as it s to that ings