Jagir Singh Deceased Through His Lrs. Satpal Singh Etc v. State of Punjab Etc

IN T

Jagir Singh (dec

State of Punjab

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Ms

MANDEEP PA

1.

The (deceased) throu (defendants/resp recorded in judg BRIEF FACTS

2.

Bri the effect that t Commissioner P land of Punjab K effect that the o Kharar regardin State of Punjab Government inc THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro ceased) through his LRs VERSUS & Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate wi s. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for th s. Shruti, AAG Punjab. ANNU, J (ORAL) e present Regular Second App ugh his LRs (appellant/plaintiff) pondents), challenging the concu gments and decrees dated 14.01.2 ief facts of the case are that pla the order dated 19.08.1975, lat Patiala vide order dated 10.04. Kaur, as surplus are illegal and order dated 10.05.1985 passed b ng sanctioning of mutation numb are also illegal and void and furt corporated on the basis of order

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-1836-2015 (O&M) served on: 08.08.2025 onounced on:18.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU ith e appellants. eal has been filed by Jagir Sin ) against State of Punjab and oth urrent findings of the courts bel 2012 and 23.09.2014. aintiff filed a suit for declaration ter on modified by the Additio .1978, declaring .9867 hectares void and suit for declaration to by Assistant Collector, First Gr er 840 in favour of defendant No ther the entries in the name of St passed by Assistant Collector F

ngh hers low n to onal s of rade o.1-tate

Grade, Kharar a injunction restra as surplus of Pu the above said l own and she die her sole, second aunt of plaintiff return with the S return, the suit Collector Agrari Punjab Kaur ga plaintiff. Later and mutation da plaintiff Jagir Commissioner, was impleaded continued in he modified the or back to him fo conducted by A declaring .9867 plaintiff also ch without implead Punjab Kaur wa Kaur was a nec are wrong and liable to be corre aining the defendant from taking unjab Kaur. It is the case of the land in the year 1959-60. Punja ed issueless on 07.01.1977, leav d class legal heir. There was no f in relation. It is further allege State Government as required un land belonging to her could n ian declared .9867 hectares of fi ave 120 kanal 7 marla of land o on, a decree to this effect was pa ated 24.06.1973 was entered in Singh challenged surplus Patiala, but during those procee as a legal heir and the procee er absence. Additional Commiss rder passed by Collector Agrari or hearing. It is further aver Additional Commissioner Patia 7 hectares of land as surplus ar hallenged the above mentioned ding the plaintiff as party, thou as a necessary party, though pla cessary party. Possession of lan

cted and further suit for perman g possession of the land so decla e plaintiff that Punjab Kaur own ab Kaur was having no issue of ving behind plaintiff Jagir Singh collateral of Punjab Kaur. She w d that Punjab Kaur never filed a nder law. In the absence of filing not have been declared surplus irst quality land as surplus. In f on 15.01.1970 to the eight sons assed by Civil Court on 11.04.19 n the revenue record. The sons proceedings before Additio edings, Punjab Kaur died. No o edings to declare her land surp ioner vide order dated 10.04.19 ian Kharar and remanded the c rred that in this way proceedi ala and Collector Agrarian Kha re illegal, null and void. Sons orders before Hon'ble High Co ugh plaintiff being a legal heir aintiff being a legal heir of Pun nd which was declared surplus h

nent ared her h as any g of but fact, s of s of onal one plus 978, case ngs arar s of ourt r of

never been take issued by Hon'b Land Reforms A taken and when landowners bec entitled to retain illegal and void the State Govern also illegal and vacation of stay Section 80 CPC not acted upon i

3.

De parties led their plaintiff. Learn plaintiff on the dismissed the a sought regarding not proved hims it has not been e is further obser orders, it has be well as Addition under Rule 5(1) she declared tha en over by the State Governmen ble High Court and thus the suit Act and when possession of the la such a land is not utilised under come entitled to file a fresh retu n possession and the surplus proc . It is further pleaded that on th nment entered mutation number d void. The State Government y order by the Hon'ble High Cou C was issued to the defendants o it. fendants in this case were proc evidence. Both the learned low rned trial Court vide impugned e ground of limitation wherea appeal, by observing, firstly, tha g the right and title of plaintiff J self to be the legal representative explained what interest Jagir Sin rved by learned lower Appellate een specifically averred by both nal Commissioner Patiala that Pu ) of Punjab Land Reforms Rules at she owned 475 kanals 16 ma

nt as there was an injunction or land was not utilised under Pun and which is declared surplus is r the Punjab Land Reforms Act, urn and consequently, his sons ceedings are liable to be declared he basis of above impugned ord r 840 on 03.12.1980, but he sam t is trying to take possession a urt and consequently a notice un on 17.02.2006, but defendants h ceeded against ex-parte. Both wer Courts dismissed the suit of d order dismissed the suit of as learned First Appellate Co at no specific declaration has b Jagir Singh and that the plaintiff e of deceased Punjab Kaur, and t ngh holds in the land in dispute e Court that in both the impugn h the Collector Agrarian Kharar unjab Kaur filed a return in Form s, 1973, on 19.11.1973, vide wh arla of land as on 24.01.1971, up

rder not are d as ers, e is after nder ave urt, een has that . It r as m A hich

which Collecto quality land, it family comprise permissible area surplus. Learn have been made filed, hence at application seek 12 and Ex.P-13 said that no such

4.

It i barred as the sa action. The imp

10.05.1985, the Authority is thre said orders afte Therefore, the su

5.

It i proof indicating present suit shou since the High they are not the

6.

Ag Regular Second lower Court and r Agrarian held that if her tot would come out that she held 9 ed of less than five family mem a to the extent of 7 hectares, leav ed lower Appellate Court furth e in both the impugned orders cer this stage merely by referring t king certified copy of return date issued by the copy agency of th h return may have been filed by is further observed by both the ame has been brought after thre pugned orders having been pass limitation for seeking declaratio ee years. The plaintiff has sough er more than twenty-one years uit of the plaintiff is time barred is observed by the learned lowe g that Punjab Kaur died on 07 uld have sought a declaration tha Court had dismissed the writ p heirs of Punjab Kaur. grieved by the above said order d Appeal has been filed challeng d learned Appellate Court, dated

tal holding is converted into f

9.0697 hectares of land and as mbers, she was permitted to ret ving a balance of 2.0697 hectares her held that since specific reci rtifying that a return in Form A w to document Ex.P-11, which is ed 19.11.1973 and certificates Ex he office of the Tehsil, it cannot Punjab Kaur. Courts below that the suit is ti ee years of the accrual of cause sed on 19.08.1975, 10.04.1978 a on of an order passed by compet ht the declaration against the abo s of the passing of the last ord . er Appellate Court that there is

7.01.1977, and that plaintiff in at he is a legal heir of Punjab Ka petition of his sons by holding t passed by the Courts below pres ing the order passed by the learn

14.01.2012 and 23.09.2014.

first her tain s as tals an x.P-t be ime e of and tent ove der. aur, that

SUBMISSIONS O

7.

Lea in holding that t Punjab Kaur. It and that there w fact stood unreb that the plaint su

8.

It is P-11, P-12 and filed by Punjab impugned order

9.

An never taken by Reforms Act, a Kaur's death. I sustained.

10.

Wit was within time attempted to fo original orders. Haryana High C The Punjab La possession and threat to title is p

OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE arned counsel for the appellant c the plaintiff had not proved hims t is urged that it was never dispu was no collateral except the plain butted as the defendants were ex-ufficiently explained plaintiff's in s further submitted that Courts b P-13, which according to the ap Kaur. In the absence of such r rs were null and void. nother argument advanced is tha the State, and the land remained a fresh assessment ought to ha It was therefore, urged that the th regard to the limitation, learn e because the cause of action a orcibly take possession of the la . Reliance was placed upon Court in Manti and Others Vs. S aw Reporter 397] wherein it w the revenue entries are challen posed, and not from the date of t

E APPELLANT contends that the courts below er self to be the legal representative uted that Punjab Kaur died issuel ntiff, who was her class II heir. T -parte. Learned counsel also arg nterest in the land. below wrongly disregarded Exhib ppellant, showed that no return w return, the surplus proceedings a at since possession of the land w d unutilised under the Punjab La ave been undertaken after Pun e surplus proceedings could not ned counsel contended that the s arose only in 2006 when the St and, and not from the date of the judgment of the Punjab a Sarwati Devi [Vol.CXXXVI 9200 was held that when a party is nged, limitation commences wh the mutation.

rred e of less The gues bits and and t be suit tate and 04-) s in

SUBMISSIONS O

11.

Lea respondents/def well-reasoned an FINDINGS

12.

Hav appeal. The app heir of Punjab K petition filed by claim of succes present suit. Th

13.

The accepted. The s return in Form be set aside mer copy agency. produced by the

14.

The Kaur is equally vesting of surplu death of the lan in accordance w

15.

Com Singh lacked th proceedings we OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH arned State counsel app fendants, on the other hand, argu nd speaking orders passed by bo ving considered the rival subm pellant-plaintiff failed to seek a s Kaur. In the face of the earlier fi y the plaintiff's sons that they w ssion was disputed issue that r he absence of such relief was fata e contention that Punjab Kaur statutory authorities recorded a c 'A' on 19.11.1973. Such finding rely on the basis of photocopies o The Courts below were corr e plaintiff was insufficient to rebu e plea that fresh assessment was y misconceived. The Punjab us land in the State once declare ndowner does not invalidate surp with law. ming to the question of locus s he requisite standing to assail ere taken against Punjab Kaur

HE RESPONDENTS pearing on behalf of ued that there is no illegality in oth the Courts below. missions, I find no substance in specific declaration that he was inding of the High Court in the w were not heirs of Punjab Kaur, required a clear declaration in al to the maintainability of the su r never filed a return cannot categorical finding that she filed gs of a competent authority can of applications or certificates of rect in holding that the evide ut the official record. s required after the death of Pun Land Reforms Act contempla ed, irrespective of possession. T plus proceedings already conclud standi, I find that the plaintiff Ja the surplus orders. The surp r, the recorded owner, during

writ uit. be her nnot f the nce ates The ded agir plus

lifetime. The p on record as h therefore, comp Jagir Singh cou asserting heirshi the plaintiff did when the earlie independent dec clear right, title, validity of the im

16.

As findings of both more than twen Limitation Act, when the surplu accrual of caus attempted to be case involved re Court held that arose. Here, ho Punjab Land Re The factual devi

17.

Lea contentions rais judgment. laintiff never intervened in thos her heir at the appropriate stag plete as against the estate of Pun uld not subsequently re-open th ip. Furthermore, as the lower Ap not establish what specific inter er writ petition by his sons h claration of title was sought in , or interest being shown, the pl mpugned statutory orders. regards limitation, this Court h the Courts blow. The challenge nty-one years after the last of the period is three years. The us orders were passed. The pla e of action by claiming that it e taken. The reliance on Manti's evenue entries where the partie erroneous entries could be igno owever, the matter concerns statu eforms Act, which directly adjud iation renders the precedent inap arned lower Appellate Court h sed by the appellant-plaintiff in

se proceedings, nor was he brou ge. The surplus declaration w njab Kaur. In these circumstanc hose proceedings decades later ppellate Court has rightly observ rest he held in the land, particula had been dismissed and when the present suit. In absence o laintiff had no locus to question does not find any illegality in e to the impugned orders was m f them. Under Article 58 of cause of action here clearly ar aintiff cannot indefinitely postpo t arose only when possession w 's case (supra) is misplaced. T es were in joint possession and red until a real threat to possess utory surplus declarations under dicate rights and cannot be ignor pplicable. has dealt with all the above s detail and passed a well reason

ught ces, by ved, arly of a made rose one That sion red.

CONCLUSION

18.

In v the suit of the a evidence. The Second Appeal,

19.

20.

Pen

August 18, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

view of the above, I find that t appellant/plaintiff. The findings refore, no ground for interfere which is dismissed accordingly. order as to costs. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

the Courts below rightly dismis s are all well supported by law a ence is made out in this Regu

stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

sed and