-1- 103(3) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2718-1993 Date of Decision:09.07.2026 MANPHUL (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LRS ...Appellant Versus BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LRS AND & ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant- plaintiff who had sought permanent injunction being in possession as tenants against allottees of suit land which was allegedly declared surplus, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 03.03.1992 passed by the then learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hisar vide which suit for permanent injunction preferred by appellants-plaintiff was dismissed and by judgment and decree dated 03.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar whereby judgment dated 03.03.1992 passed by learned Court of First Instance was modified and appeal was partly decreed. 2. Appellant-plaintiff had asserted that the land measuring 51 kanal 07 marlas as fully detailed in the plaint is under possession of appellant-plaintiff being tenants on payment of 1/3rd batai for the last more than 50 years. Accordingly, injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering into his possession was sought. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2718-1993 -2- 3. Respondents-defendants in their written statement pleaded that suit land was declared surplus vide order dated 19.12.1981, thereafter, it had vested in State of Haryana and was allotted to respondents-defendants. It was asserted that appellant-plaintiff concealed material facts and dismissal of suit was accordingly, prayed for. 4. Following issues were framed by learned Court of First Instance on 18.03.1983:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged in para No.1 of the preliminary objections? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit as alleged in para No.4 of the preliminary objection? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. Further vide order dated 14.12.1990, the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Hisar also framed the following issues:- 1-A Whether the plaintiff has been cultivating the suit land as a tenant for the last about 50 years as alleged? OPP 1-B Whether the suit land was declared as surplus area vide order dated 19.12.1981 of the prescribed authority? OPD RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2718-1993 -3- 1-C. Whether the suit land was allotted to the defendants by the prescribed authority as alleged? OPD 1-D. Whether the order dated 19.12.1981 of the prescribed authority, if any is against law without jurisdiction, null and void and is liable to be set aside? OPD 5. The suit was initially dismissed by learned Court of First Instance but partly allowed and decreed by learned First Appellate Court whereby it was held that appellant-plaintiff shall not be forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. It was further held that respondents- defendants can take possession of the land as per law being allottee in pursuance of allotment order in their favour. 6. In the present case, the only controversy is as regards to the finding recorded by learned Courts below on issue Nos.1-B & 1-C, since respondents-defendants had taken specific plea that suit land was declared surplus on 19.12.1981 and thereafter, was allotted to respondents- defendants. Issue Nos.1-B & 1-C were framed and both the Courts after considering respective evidence have concluded that the suit land after being declared surplus was allotted to the respondents-defendants. As far as possession of appellant-plaintiff is concerned, same was accepted by learned Appellate Court on the basis of revenue records, duly noticed in para No.8 of the judgment and it was found that it is appellant-plaintiff who is in possession. The learned First Appellate Court had agreed with the conclusion drawn by learned Court of First Instance that after suit land was declared surplus it has vested in provisional Government and Government has not been impleaded as a party to the suit, therefore, neither the order passed by the prescribed authority declaring the suit land as surplus can be RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2718-1993 -4- challenged by appellant-plaintiff nor was challenged by appellant-plaintiff. Accordingly, it was held that it is respondents-defendants who are the allottees of suit land on allotment by competent authority. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has challenged above noted findings. It is asserted that being tenant he has every right to challenge the same. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has argued that learned Courts below have erred in recording the finding that suit land was allotted to respondents-defendants as the order declaring suit land surplus, has not been placed on record and that appellant-plaintiff being tenants were entitled to tenant permissible area. He further stated that no notice declaring suit land to be surplus was ever issued to appellant-plaintiff. 8. On consideration of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the well- reasoned conclusion drawn by learned First Appellate Court. As far as possession of appellant-plaintiff is concerned, same stands established. It is also established by allotment certificate which is on record in favour of respondents-defendants that suit land was allotted to respondents-defendants after it was declared surplus. It is worth noticing that respondents-defendants has specifically raised plea that suit land was declared surplus and was allotted to him vide allotment certificate. The declaration declaring land to be surplus stands duly proved by virtue of allotment certificate, whereby land declared surplus was allotted and therefore, mere non-placing of surplus order dated 19.12.1981 could not be fatal to the case of respondents- defendants. Rather it was for appellant-plaintiff to show that no surplus order was issued on or that surplus order is void, therefore, allotment is bad. 9. Moreover, in the present case, despite clear plea taken by the RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2718-1993 -5- respondents-defendants, appellant-plaintiff while filing the replication had simply stated order declaring land surplus to be void. However, he has not amended his suit seeking declaration to this effect and therefore, it is not open for him to challenge findings of learned Courts below on issue Nos.1-B & 1-C, that land was declared surplus and allotted to respondents-defendants . Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal, hence dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. ` (PARMOD GOYAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document