(O&M) Ram Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

IN T

Ram Kumar (sin State of Haryana

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

for

Mr

for

Res

Vid

Res

vid MANDEEP PA

1.

The plaintiffs challe learned Lower

24.03.1993 pass was reversed.

2.

The Ram and Muns State of Har (Civil)/Allotmen THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

nce deceased) through LRs and O VERSUS a and others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. S.N.Chopra, Advocate with r. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for t r. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryan respondents No.1 and 2 – State r. Pavan Malik, Advocate respondents No.3 to 5 and 7. spondent No.6 proceeded agains de order dated 11.08.1998. spondents No.8 to 10 proceeded de order dated 25.09.2025

-.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appea enging the judgment and decree Appellate Court, whereby t sed by the learned Trial Court e plaintiffs–appellants, namely shi Ram, sons of Narain, filed ryana, through the Collecto nt Authority, Sirsa and private re

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-786-1998 (O&M) served on:-13.10.2025 ate of Decision : 14.10.2025 Others

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellants. na st ex-parte against ex-parte al has been filed by the appellan e dated 21.02.1998 passed by the judgment and decree da decreeing the suit of the plaint Nihal Singh, Ram Kumar, Chh a suit against the defendant No or, Sirsa, defendant No.2-SD espondents/ defendant no. 3 to 7.

- nts– ated tiffs hotu o.1-DO

3.

The from dispossess measuring 73 ka under Sections Act, 1972 (herei

4.

The orders dated 17 Allotment Auth Division, Hisar Brief Facts

5.

The land to the exte before the pass Authority (defen the suit land to t the plaintiffs wa from the Jamab the suit land wa issuing the man Act. Hence, the their rights. Sim

04.06.1987 pass appeal and revi being without j natural justice. I e suit was one for permanent inj sing the plaintiffs or resettling anals 18 marlas, without followin 14(1), 16(2) and 16(5) of the H inafter referred to as "the Act"). e plaintiffs also sought a decree

7.01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04.0 hority, Sirsa, the Collector, Sir (Camp at Sirsa), were illegal, vo e plaintiffs pleaded that they ar ent of 316/495 shares, but they sing of the allotment order da ndant No.2). In that order, the de the tune of ₹5,676.45 as per Ann as wrongly shown as 75 shares andi for the year 1984–85. It w as assessed in the absence and a ndatory notice in Form VII as re e said order was claimed to be i milarly, orders dated 15.05.1984 sed by the Commissioner, Hisar ision respectively, were also ch jurisdiction, against law and fa It was further alleged that the de

junction, restraining the defenda tenants in respect of the suit la ng due process of law as prescrib Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdi for declaration to the effect that

06.1987, passed respectively by rsa, and the Commissioner, Hi oid, and not binding on their righ re the recorded owners of the were neither heard nor summon ated 17.01.1984 by the Allotm efendant No.2 assessed the value nexure 'Ka'. However, the share s instead of 316 shares, as is cl was further alleged that the value at the back of the plaintiffs, with equired under Section 16(2) of illegal, void, and not binding up passed by the Collector, Sirsa, a Division, Hisar (Camp at Sirsa) hallenged on identical grounds acts, and violative of principles efendants were resettling tenants

- ants bed ngs isar hts. suit ned ment e of e of lear e of hout pon ) in s of s of

the basis of the from the land in remained adama redressal.

6.

De Authority, Sirsa objections, inter view of Section Section 25 of th CPC. The suit h The plaintiffs ha maintainable in declared surplus the Government eligible persons conducted after concern with th further stated th vide Rapat Roz

11.05.1984, and on the basis of plaintiffs was s 16(2) of the Act legal and bindi impugned orders and were thre n dispute. Despite repeated requ ant, which constrained the plaint fendants No.1 and 2 (State of H a) appeared and filed written sta r alia, that the Civil Court had no n 26 of the Haryana Ceiling o he Punjab Act, the suit was bad f had been filed without impleadin ad not approached the Court wit the present form. On merits, it s by the order of collector dated 0 t, and the allotment of the same according to law. It was stated t r hearing all concerned person he land which was declared surp hat possession of the land had alr znamchas Nos. 270, 273, 274, d 11.07.1984, respectively. The c f Mutation No.316 dated 25.1 shown as 75/495, not 316/495. t were fully complied with, and t ing on the plaintiffs. It was a

eatening to dispossess the plaint uests not to proceed, the defenda tiffs to approach the Civil Court Haryana and SDO (Civil)/Allotm atement taking several prelimin o jurisdiction to entertain the sui on Land Holdings Act, 1972, a for want of notice under Section ng the allottees as necessary part th clean hands, and the suit was was averred that the suit land w

07.03.1983. The land thus vested e was duly made on 17.01.1984 that the allotment proceedings w ns and that the plaintiffs had plus in the hands of Har Lal. It w ready been delivered to the allott 277, and 278, dated 10.05.19 compensation had been determin

1.1982, wherein the share of Hence, the provisions of Sect the impugned orders were perfec also contended that there was

- tiffs ants for ment nary it in n 80 ties. not was d in 4 to were was tees 984, ned tion

necessity to issu plaintiffs himsel

7.

De contended that t file the present complied with w the suit with co Authority, Coll accordance with

8.

Rep the plaint and

9.

On framed the follo

1.

¶04on

¶2suit

3. CP

4. OP

¶5ue notice under Section 14(1) o lf had surrendered the surplus lan fendants No.3 to 7 i.e private the suit was not maintainable. T t suit, and the mandatory prov while allotting the suit land to t osts, contending that all three re lector, and Commissioner had h law. plications were filed by the plain d denying the allegations ra n the basis of the pleadings of t owing issues for adjudication: Whether impugned orders d

06.1987, passed respectively by d Commissioner, are wrong, ille the grounds mentioned in the pla Whether the Civil Court ha t? OPD Whether the suit is bad for C? OPD Whether the suit is bad for PD Whether the suit is not maint

of the Act because the father of nd into the pool. e respondents, on the other ha The plaintiffs had no locus stand visions of the Act had been fu them. They prayed for dismissal evenue authorities i.e the Allotm d decided the matter strictly ntiffs, reiterating the stand taken aised in the written statemen the parties, the learned Trial Co dated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, a y the Allotment Authority, Collec gal, void, and liable to be set as aint? OPP s no jurisdiction to try the pres r want of notice under Section r non-joinder of necessary parti tainable in the present form? OP

- di to ully l of ment in n in nts. ourt ctor, side sent ies? D

¶6han

7.

10.

In documentary ev

Ex. Ex.

Ex.

Ex.

Ex.

11.

The documentary ev Ex. dec Ex. file Ex. Ex.

¶07Ex. aut Ex. Ex. pos Whether the plaintiffs have n nds; if so, to what effect? OPD Relief. support of their case, the pla vidence. The following document . P1 – Jamabandi for the year 19 . P2 – Jamabandi for the year 197 . P3 – Copy of order dated 04.06 . P4 – Copy of order dated 15.05 . P5 – Copy of order dated 17.01 e defendants, besides leading ora vidence: . D1 – Copy of order dated clared surplus. . D2 – Copy of order of collecto ed by Narain, father of plaintiff. . D3 – Application by father of p . D4 – Mutation no. 316 showing

11.1982. . D5 – Copy of order of allotm thority. . D6 to Ex. D9 – Copies of Rapa . D10 and Ex. D11 – Furth ssession and allotment.

not approached the Court with cl aintiffs produced oral as well ts were tendered on record: 84–85; 74–75;

6.1987;

5.1984;

1.1984. al evidence, produced the follow

09.10.1980 vide which land w or, Sirsa dated 07.03.1983 in app plaintiff dated 28.02.1983. g share of plaintiffs as 75/495 da ment dated 17.01.1984 by allotm at Roznamchas. her related documents concern

- ean as wing was peal ated ment

Ex. ord Ex. aga Findings of the

12.

The plaintiffs exami possession of th allotment of the of hearing was that the allotme and, therefore, t Commissioner, other hand, DW that the suit land

09.10.1980 (Ex order of the Col the surplus land the land was de share being only It was further st Munadi, proved were valid and learned Governm the plea of no . D12 – Copy of order dated 15.0 der dated 17.01.1984 in appeal fi . D13 – Copy of order dated 0 ainst order dated 15.05.1984. e Learned Trial Court e learned Trial Court, while dec ined PW1, who categorically d he suit land to the extent of 3 e surplus land vide order dated 17 given to them by the authoritie ent proceedings were undertaken the orders passed by the Allotm Hisar Division, were illegal and W1, Mahla Singh, Patwari, appea d had been declared surplus in th .D1) and that Narain was allow llector dated 07.03.1983 (Ex.D2) d was placed on file as Ex.D3, a eclared surplus, the plaintiffs ha y 75/495 and not 316/495, as refl tated that the allotment had bee d by Rapat Roznamcha Ex.D11 binding. Learned trial Court f ment Pleader argued that as noti on-service of notice was unten

05.1984, by Collector, Sirsa agai led by sons of Narain;

04.06.1987 by commissioner, Hi iding Issue No.1, observed that deposed that they were owners 16/495 shares and that before

7.01.1984, no notice or opportun es concerned. It was further sta n without any partition of the la ment Authority, Collector, Sirsa, a d not binding on their rights. On ared for the defendants and depo he hands of Narain vide order da wed to select his reserved area ). The record regarding selection and according to the witness, o ad no concern with the same, th flected in Mutation No.316 (Ex.D en made after due proclamation , and that all the impugned ord further observed that although ce had been given through Muna nable, but this contention is

- inst isar s in nity ated osed ated by n of nce heir D4). i.e. ders adi,

acceptable as th that even if suc notice under Se The Court repr mandatory on t notice in Form Thus, the fixatio plaintiffs, rende From the Jamab indeed recorded reflected their o the Allotment compensation en therefore, stood Authority, Colle be set aside as il

13.

Wh the learned Tria of the Civil Cou of jurisdiction o authorities had hearing the plai Civil Court was Kumar's case t violated, jurisdic he plaintiffs had specifically den ch a Munadi was issued, the sam ection 16(2) of the Haryana Cei roduced the said statutory pro the part of the competent auth VII appended to the Act befor on of valuation was made in the ering the order of the Allotmen bandi for the year 1984–85, the C d as owners of 316/495 shares, ownership only to the extent of 7 Authority had failed to cons ntitlement of the plaintiffs due t vitiated. The Trial Court conclu ector, and Commissioner were n llegal, void, and not binding on t hile deciding issue No. 2, relatin al Court held that though Section urt, such bar cannot apply where or in violation of mandatory p failed to serve statutory notice a intiffs, their actions were witho s competent to entertain the suit. to reinforce that where statuto ction of the Civil Court to set asi

nied having received any notice a me could not be treated as a va iling on Land Holdings Act, 19 ovision and observed that it w hority to give a clear fifteen da re assessing the value of the la absence and behind the back of nt Authority void and non-bindi Court found that the plaintiffs w whereas Mutation No.316 (Ex.D 75/495 shares, thereby showing t sider the correct ownership a to non-hearing. The entire proce ded that the orders of the Allotm not sustainable in law and liable the rights of the plaintiffs. ng to jurisdiction of the Civil Co n 26 of the Act bars the jurisdict the authorities have acted in exc rovisions of the statute. Since and had assessed valuation with out jurisdiction, and therefore, . The Court again referred to Vin ry procedure or natural justice ide such orders remains intact.

- alid

¶972was ays' and. f the ing. were D4) that ess, ment e to urt, tion cess hout nod

14.

The against the defe decree dated 24

15.05.1984, and Commissioner r plaintiffs and w allotting the la provisions of S allotment could finding that po testimony to tha was in actual po by the defendan delivery of poss of the plaintiffs.

15.

Fee passed by the le preferred by th (Civil) having defendants as pr Findings of the

16.

The the parties and e by the Trial Cou that the Trial Co e remaining issues were also dec fendants. Consequently, the suit

4.03.1993, declaring that the im d 04.06.1987, passed by the A respectively, were illegal, void, a were accordingly set aside. The and or resettling tenants there Sections 14 and 16 of the Act d only be made in due process ossession of the suit land rema at effect was unrebutted and DW ossession. The Rapat Roznamch nts were found to be mere paper session. On these findings, the su

eling aggrieved by the judgm earned Trial Court decreeing the he defendants–State of Haryana the powers of the Allotment roforma respondents e Learned Lower Appellate Cou e learned Lower Appellate Cour examining the record, proceeded urt. At the very outset, the learn ourt had completely ignored a m

cided in favour of the plaintiffs a t was decreed vide judgment a mpugned orders dated 17.01.19 Allotment Authority, Collector, a and not binding on the rights of e defendants were restrained fr eon without complying with t, meaning thereby that any fr of law. The Court also recorde ained with the plaintiffs, as th W1 had been unable to specify w has (Ex.D6 to Ex.D10) relied up transactions, not evidencing act uit was decreed with costs in fav ent and decree dated 24.03.19 suit of the plaintiffs, an appeal w a through the Collector and SD t Authority, arraying the priv urt rt, after hearing learned counsel d to reappraise the findings record ned Government Pleader contend material aspect of the case nam

- 984, rom resh ed a heir who pon tual vour was DO vate for ded ded ely,

the consent giv authority. The L

28.02.1983 (Ex Surplus Area, S to surrender lan Ex.D3. It was fu order by the Al was duly effecte of the Prescribed

17.

The subsequently all father of the pla challenge the va had consented t observed that M revenue record, claimed by them to them before Roznamcha (Ex the prescribed a

18.

The the Collector, S valid and in con concerned partie Holdings Act, ven by the father of the plainti Lower Appellate Court noticed t x.D-3) , moved an application Sirsa, voluntarily declaring his su nd measuring 73 kanals 18 marl urther observed that even at the t llotment Authority on 17.01.19 ed in the village, which fact wa d Authority, Sirsa, Ex.D5. e Lower Appellate Court held lotted was the same land which aintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, b alidity of those proceedings, par to surrender the said land to th Mutation No.316 (Ex.D4) was du reflecting the share of the plain m. The plaintiffs had repeatedly u e assessing the value of the l x.D11) clearly showed that Mun authority had taken action in acc e learned Lower Appellate Court Sirsa, and the Commissioner, H nformity with law, and that full o es as required under Section 16( 1972. It was further noticed th

iffs, Narain, before the prescrib that Narain son of Ramjas had, n before the Prescribed Author urplus land and expressing cons las, as described in his applicat time of the passing of the allotm 984, Munadi (public proclamati as specifically recorded in the or that the land declared surplus a h originally belonged to Narain, being his successors, could not n rticularly when their father hims he surplus pool. The Court furt uly sanctioned and recorded in ntiffs as 75/495 and not 316/495 urged that no notice had been giv land, but a perusal of the Ra nadi was effected in the village a ordance with the provisions of l t also held that the orders passed Hisar Division, Hisar, were lega opportunity had been afforded to

(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on La hat the plaintiffs had only 75/4

- bed on rity, sent tion ment ion) rder now self ther 5 as ven apat law. d by

shares as per advantage or cla land. The Court the State, the P allottees, who w Ex.D6 to Ex.D1 suit land after th continued posse

19.

In t Trial Court com recorded therein proceedings con held that the jur Haryana Ceiling surplus and the observed that th decreeing the su already availed Commissioner, legality of the or

20.

In v the findings of unsustainable, a and the judgmen aside. the revenue record, and there aim higher ownership when their t emphasized that once the land Prescribed Authority was comp were subsequently put in posse

¶1It was held that the plaintiffs he allotment and had produced n ession. this background, the learned Lo mmitted a grave error while de n were contrary to the materia nducted by the revenue authoritie risdiction of the Civil Court sto g on Land Holdings Act, 1972, e statutory authorities had acted he Civil Court had exceeded i uit despite an express statutory of the remedies of appeal and could not invoke the Civil C rders passed by the competent tr view of the above discussion, th f the Trial Court on Issues N and accordingly, the same were r nt and decree dated 24.03.1993

efore, they could not derive a r father had already surrendered was declared surplus and vested etent to allot the same to eligi ession through Rapat Roznamc were no longer in possession of no revenue record to establish th ower Appellate Court held that ciding Issue No.1, as the findi al on record and ignored the va es. The Lower Appellate Court a ood barred under Section 26 of , since the land had been decla d within their competence. It w its jurisdiction in entertaining a bar, and that the plaintiffs, hav d revision before the Collector a ourt's jurisdiction to question ribunals. he Lower Appellate Court held t No.1 and 2 were erroneous a reversed. The appeal was accept passed by the Trial Court were

- any d in ible chas f the heir ngs alid also ared was ving that ted,

21.

Fee

21.02.1998 pas Second Appeal h

22.

Up whereas respond

23.

Lea judgment and d well-reasoned f against the fact Appellate Cour particularly Ex. share of the pla entry, had rightl learned Additio authority of law (Ex. D4). It is su the back of the carries no evide that a mutation rights, it being placed by the ownership share

24.

On Ex. D4, i.e., M revenue record, eling aggrieved by the afores sed by the learned Lower App has been filed by the plaintiffs–a on notice, respondents No.1 to 5 dents No. 6 and 8 to 10 were pro arned counsel for the appellants ecree passed by the learned Add findings of the Trial Court are ts and evidence on record. It rt has erred in ignoring the P1, the Jamabandi for the year aintiffs as 316/495. The Trial Co ly held that the plaintiffs were o nal District Judge failed to rec w the said share was reduced to ubmitted that the said mutation plaintiffs, without notice or opp entiary value. Learned counsel fo n in the revenue record does no merely an instrument for fiscal Lower Appellate Court on E e was misplaced and unsustainab n the other hand, learned counsel Mutation No.316, was duly sanct showing the plaintiffs' share a

said judgment and decree da pellate Court, the present Regu appellants before this Court. 5 and 7 chose to contest the app oceeded ex-parte. s has contended that the impugn ditional District Judge reversing e illegal, without jurisdiction, a is argued that the learned Low material documentary eviden 1984–85, which clearly records ourt, after considering this reven owners to that extent. However, cord any finding as to under w o 75/495 through Mutation No.3 was entered and sanctioned beh portunity of hearing, and as such or the appellants has further argu ot confer or extinguish owners l purposes, and, therefore, relia Ex. D4 to diminish the plainti ble in law. for the respondents has argued t tioned and reflected in the offic as 75/495. It is submitted that t

- ated ular peal ned wer nce, nue what hind h, it ued ship ance iffs' that cial

mutation was ne was any evidenc certified copy o the plaintiffs to authority, which justified in relyi and there is noth

25.

Aft Court finds no The said mutati corresponds to land by the com Narain. The pla authorities nor sanctioned. In v unless rebutted finding of the le suffer from any the Appellate A The Civil Court

15.05.1984 (Ex impugned order Therefore, this C correct and depi ever challenged by the plaintiff ce produced to show that the sa of a sanctioned mutation stood o establish that the entry wa h they failed to do. Hence, the l ing upon Ex.D4, as it represent hing on record to discredit its aut ter considering the rival conten illegality in the reliance placed ion correctly reflects the share the earlier proceedings culmina mpetent authority and the volun aintiffs have neither challenged led any cogent evidence to p view of the settled position of l by credible evidence, are pres earned Lower Appellate Court b y legal infirmity. Moreover this p Authority/Collector, Sirsa and w t cannot sit as an Appellate Cou x.D-12) passed by the Collecto r dated 04.06.1987 (Ex.D-3) pa Court is of the considered opini icts the true share of the plaintiff

fs before any competent forum, ame was illegally entered. Once exhibited, the burden shifted up as erroneous or obtained with earned Lower Appellate Court w ts the correct and existing positi thenticity or legality. ntions and perusing the record, t d upon Mutation No.316 (Ex. D of the plaintiffs as 75/495, wh ating in the declaration of surp ntary consent given by their fath d this mutation before the reven prove that the same was wron aw that entries in revenue recor sumed to be correct and valid, based on Ex. D4 cannot be said plea was taken by plaintiffs bef was dealt with in the proper foru urt over the impugned order da or, Sirsa, which was affirmed assed by the Commissioner, Hi ion that the mutation in question fs in the suit land.

- nor pon hout was ion, this D4). hich plus her, nue ngly rds, d to fore um. ated d in sar.

26.

Lea mandatory prov Act, 1972, have is the bounden d to have any int interested perso before assessing 1984–85 (Ex. P shares, they wer to them was m submits that the in his cross-exa regarding issuan 16(2). The learn discuss this cate Lower Appellate the plaintiffs, d application of m absolve the pres days' notice to submits that the No.128 dated 04 further, the said had a direct inte that Munadi wa arned counsel for the appellan visions of Section 16(2) of the H not been complied with. It is ur duty of the prescribed authority t erest in the land, including the ons, on the basis of the entries i g the amount payable. Since, a 1), the plaintiffs were recorded re necessary parties within the m mandatory before the fixation o e Trial Court had specifically rec amination that there was neith nce of the mandatory 15 days' no ned Lower Appellate Court, ho egorical finding. It is further arg e Court on Ex. D3, the alleged ap declaring the land surplus, is m mind. The filing of such an applic scribed authority of its statutory the affected persons before asse Trial Court rightly held that the

4.01.1984 was not for 15 days, notice was addressed to the tena erest in the land. Hence, the fin as effected as mentioned in Ex

nts has further contended that Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdi rged that under the said provision to issue notice to all persons kno landowners, tenants, or any ot in the revenue record or otherw as per the Jamabandi for the y as owners to the extent of 316/4 meaning of Section 16(2), and not of compensation. Learned coun corded a finding that DW1 admit her any order sheet nor any or otice to the plaintiffs under Sect owever, did not contradict or ev gued that the reliance placed by pplication filed by Narain, father misconceived and amounts to n cation by the big landowner did y obligation to issue an advance essing compensation. Counsel a e alleged notice recorded vide Ra as it was only for 07.01.1984, a ants and not to the landowners, w nding of the Lower Appellate Co x. D5 (order dated 17.01.1984)

- ngs n, it own ther wise, year tice nsel tted rder tion ven r of non-not e 15 also apat who ourt ) is

based on an erro order cannot s According to th fact of actual discharge, and i Section 16(2) co

27.

Lea submissions and their individual voluntarily surr declared surplus as well as the ap the very land to in the proceedin in law to issue further submitte challenged by t authorities or e Commissioner plaintiffs. The reopen or quest

28.

Res The material on owned and held order declaring oneous appreciation of record, a substitute for the mandatory s he appellants, the burden lay hea Munadi through independent in the absence of such proof, th ould not be drawn. arned counsel for the responden d argued that the land in questio capacity but was the land of the rendered the same as surplus. I s vide Ex. D1 dated 09.10.1980, pplication Ex. D3, filed by Narai o be declared surplus. Once the ngs and consented to surrender t a separate notice to his sons, w ed that the order declaring the the plaintiffs or their father eit ven in the present proceedings ( Ex. D-12, D-13) passed in a plaintiffs, who participated in ion those concluded proceeding spective contentions of learned n record clearly establishes that d by Narain, the father of the p the land as surplus was passe

as the mere recital of Munadi in service of notice under the A avily on the defendants to prove evidence, which they failed he presumption of compliance w nts, however, has refuted the abo n did not belong to the plaintiffs eir father, Narain, who had hims It is pointed out that the land w , and the Collector's order (Ex. D in, clearly show that he had selec big landowner himself participa the land, there was no requirem who merely claim through him. I land surplus (Ex. D1) was ne ther before the competent reven s. The orders of the Collector a appeal, were all contested by those proceedings , cannot n gs on the ground of want of not counsel for the parties consider the land in question was origina plaintiffs, and that the foundatio ed by the prescribed authority

- Act. to with ove fs in self was D2) cted ated ment It is ever nue now ice. red. ally onal

09.10.1980 (Ex

28.02.1983 (Ex. was first declare process of rese surplus, Ex. D1 and continues to

29.

It i now impugned appeals or rev Commissioner. at all stages. Al their favour, the All the pleas ta notice of 15 da inadequate wer against the plain follows:- "26 jur . D1). Thereafter, Narain, as the . D3) selecting the reserved area ed surplus and subsequently the erved area. Significantly, the p , has not been challenged by th o stand on record. s further evident from the record in this suit are the very orders vision filed by the plaintiffs The plaintiffs contested those p lthough the plaintiffs plead that e record does not disclose the da aken by the plaintiffs in the pres ays and reducing their share an re considered by the appellate ntiffs. Here comes the bar of se

¶6BAR OF JURISDICTION. — isdiction to —

(a) entertain or proceed with a contract for transfer of la State Government to the surp

(b) settle, decide or deal with required to be settled, decid

e owner, filed an application da a, thus the sequence is that the la owner participated in the select principal order declaring the la he plaintiffs in the present civil s d that the orders (Ex.D-12 & D-s which were the subject matter s, before the Collector and proceedings and, on the record, l their father transferred the land ate when such transfer was effect sent suit regarding non issuance nd amount of compensation be e revenue authorities and decid ection 26 of the Act which reads — (1) No Civil Court shall h h a suit for specific performance and which affects the right of plus area under this Act; or h any matter which is under this ded or dealt with by the Financ

- ated tion suit -13) r of lost d in ted. e of eing ded s as ave e of Act

(2) Co this

30.

Rel counsel for the declaration that Commissioner allotments are il

(1)(b) and sub-s declared surplus becomes one ex reopen or sit in judgment of the Haryana and an area is declared Act, a civil suit bar. The Suprem and possession whose orders att

31.

Lea the bar containe the mandatory p was issued to th Commissioner, the Comm Prescribed Authority. No order of the Financial Com llector or the Prescribed Author s Act shall be called in question lying on the above statutory bar respondents submits that the re the orders passed by the prescri declaring land surplus, asses llegal and void, squarely falls w section (2) of Section 26. It is a s and the prescribed authority h xclusively triable by the statutory n appeal over those determinat e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev nother, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 49 d surplus and allotted by the pre challenging such orders is not m me Court affirmed that all dispute must be agitated only before the tain finality unless set aside in th arned counsel for the appellants ed in Section 26 is not absolute. procedure under Section 16(2) w he plaintiffs, who were recorded

missioner, the Collector or mmissioner, the Commissioner, rity made under or in pursuance in any Court." under section 26 of the act, learn elief sought in the plaint namely ibed authority, the Collector and ssing compensation and mak within the prohibition of sub-sect argued that once the land has b has acted under the Act, the ma y forums, and a Civil Court can tions. Reliance is placed upon vinder Singh and others v. State 91, wherein it was held that when scribed authority under the Ceil maintainable in view of the statut es regarding surplus area, allotm e authorities designated by the A he statutory hierarchy. s, on the other hand, contends t It is argued that in the present c was not followed, as no valid not as owners to the extent of 316/4

- e of ned y, a king tion een atter nnot e of n an ling tory ment Act, that case

shares. Consequ back, rendering orders are pate mandatory prov can step in to pr reliance is place v. Vinod Kumar Punjab Security the Haryana Act of hearing as re nullity and coul same analogy, i and non-service

32.

Up I am of the view 26 of the Act is forbids the Civi the Act requires

(2) further prohi any court." The upon the speci proceedings in t vide order date Narain (Ex.D3), by the compete uently, the order determining com it void ab initio. According to t ently without jurisdiction and h visions of the Act and of principle rotect the rights of affected pers ed upon the Full Bench judgmen r, 1987 RRR 81, which held, w y of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (a pr t), that where the landowners ha equired by Rule 6 of the Rules f ld be challenged in a Civil Cou it is contended that the present of notice, was maintainable befo on consideration of the rival sub w that the contention of the resp s couched in clear and comprehe il Court from "settling, deciding s to be determined by the prescr ibits any order of those authoritie e legislative intent is unmistakab al tribunals constituted under the Civil Court. In the present c ed 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1), followe , and the subsequent appellate an ent authorities under the Act. T

mpensation was passed behind th the appellants, where the impugn have been passed in violation es of natural justice, the Civil Co sons. In support of this propositi nt of this Court in State of Harya while interpreting Section 25 of rovision analogous to Section 26 ad not been afforded an opportun framed thereunder, the order wa urt despite the statutory bar. On suit, based upon denial of hear fore the Civil Court. bmissions and the statutory schem pondents merits acceptance. Sect ensive language. Sub-section (1) or dealing with any matter" wh ribed authorities, while sub-sect es from being "called in question ble to confer exclusive jurisdict the Act and to preclude para case, the land was declared surp ed by the selection application nd revisional orders were all pas The plaintiffs participated in th

- heir ned n of ourt ion, ana 6 of nity as a ring me, tion )(b) hich tion n in tion allel plus n of ssed

proceedings an remained unsuc now raised by th proceedings that

33.

The misplaced. The action is wholly However, as he exception cann procedural irreg domain. In the owner, Narain; not nullities bu jurisdiction to en Court was ther holding that the Holdings Act, 1 Conclusion

34.

This Court com material on rec Court suffer fr demonstrates th order dated 09. himself particip d contested the matter up to cessful. Those statutory orders h hem in the Civil Court amounts t Section 26 seeks to protect from e reliance placed by the appell Full Bench recognised a limite y without jurisdiction or taken eld by the Supreme Court in De not be enlarged to permit civi gularity once the competent auth case at hand, the proceedings w statutory machinery was duly i ut decisions within jurisdiction ntertain or adjudicate the presen efore correct in reversing the e suit was barred by Section 26

¶972other point was agitated by the mes to the conclusion, in view cord, that the findings recorded rom no infirmity either in law hat the land was declared surplu

10.1980 (Ex.D1). Thereafter, N pated in the proceedings by filin

the revisional stage, where th have attained finality. The challen to a collateral attack upon the v m re-litigation. lants upon Vinod Kumar's case ed exception where the authorit n in total denial of natural just evinder Singh's case (supra), t il suits merely on allegations hority has acted within its statut were directed against the record invoked. The orders impugned n. Hence, the Civil Court had nt suit. The learned Lower Appell finding of the Trial Court and 6 of the Haryana Ceiling on La e learned counsel for the plainti w of the above discussion and d by the learned Lower Appel w or on facts. The record clea us by the prescribed authority v Narain, the father of the plainti ng an application dated 28.02.19

- hey nge very e is ty's ice. that of tory ded are late d in iffs. late arly vide iffs,

(Ex.D3) selecti Collector and th after considering pleas taken by authorities whi challenge the s expressly barred 1972. Moreover clearly indicates allottees in acco There is no evid or that any ille Court finds no dated 21.02.199 of the plaintiffs

35.

The judgment and de

36.

Pen

October 14, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh ing the reserved land. The or he Commissioner were passed in g the matter in detail, and those o y plaintiffs in present suit we le passing impugned orders. same proceedings before the C d under Section 26 of the Harya r, the revenue record, particularl s that possession of the surplus l ordance with law, thereby com dence on record to suggest that t gality occurred in the delivery ground to interfere with the w 98 passed by the learned Addition was dismissed as barred by juris e present Regular Second Appe ecree of the learned Lower Appe nding application(s), if any, also

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable

rders of the Allotment Author n due exercise of statutory pow orders have attained finality. All re considered by the above s The plaintiffs, cannot reopen Civil Court, whose jurisdiction ana Ceiling on Land Holdings A ly the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D1 land had been duly delivered to mpleting the process under the A the plaintiffs continue in possess y of possession. Consequently, t well-reasoned judgment and dec nal District Judge, whereby the sdiction and devoid of merit. eal is, therefore, dismissed, and ellate Court are hereby upheld. stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Speaking : Yes/No

- rity, ers, said or n is Act, 11), Act. sion this cree