RSA No. 2551 of 1995 IN THE HIG I. Jagdish & Ors. Raj Dulari & Ors. II. Jagdish & Ors. Dharam Paul (no CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. Mr. Mr. For a Mr. App Mr. For r Resp Non Mr. Mr. Mr. For L Mr. For r Mr. Serv Disp Conn Serv Disp 1995 Page N: 1 of 5 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR RSA No. 2551 of 1995(O Versus Ors. RSA No. 2552 of 1995 Versus (now deceased) through LRs. & Ors Reserved on: 16.01.202 Pronounced on: 21.01. N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate and Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate For appellants in both the appeals. Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Appellant No.1 in RSA 2552-1995. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate For respondent No.1 in RSA-2551-19 Respondent No.3 in RSA-2552-1995 None for respondent No.2 to 9 in RS Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Lavish, Advocate For LRs of respondent No.1 in RSA- Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate For respondent No.2 in RSA-2552-19 Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana. Service of respondents No. 4,6,12 & Dispensed with vide order dated 30 Connected case being IOIN-2551-19 Service of respondents No.10,17 and Dispensed with vide order dated 13 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 95(O&M) …Appellants …Respondents 95 …Appellants Ors. …Respondents .2026 .01.2026 PTA als. 5. ate 1995 and 995. in RSA-2551-1995. ith -2552-1995. 1995. 2 & 13 in RSA-2552-1995 d 30.03.2010 passed in 1995 in RSA-2551-1995. 7 and 18 in RSA-2552-1995 d 13.03.2023. JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2551 of 1995 DEEPAK GUPTA, Intro a common judgm Court, affirming t Ist Class, Dabwa facts, they are be 2. For from Civil Suit others, out of wh 3.1 Plead she along with th land as co-shar partitioned. One a big landowner 29.01.1963 passe plaintiff’s case w void as it had be a guardian or ne pleaded that no contrary to the m Tenure Rules, 19 alleged surplus a share as required Act, 1953 and Se 3.2 It wa land to Shiv Chan the death of Shi defendants inher 3.3 The 03.08.1987, whe ground that it wa 1995 Page N: 2 of 5 TA, J. Introductory Facts : These two Reg udgment dated 05.04.1995 passed ing the decree dated 31.10.1991 ren bwali. Since both appeals involve e being disposed of by this common For the sake of convenience and cla it No.463 of 1987 titled Smt. Raj f which RSA No.2551 of 1995 has ar Pleadings of the Plaintiff : The plain th the proforma defendants was in sharers. The land was admitted One Sahdev Singh, a co-owner of th ner and part of his holding was de assed by the Collector (Surplus Ar e was that the surplus order dated d been passed when Sahdev Singh w r next friend, in violation of Order no notice or opportunity of hearin he mandatory provisions of Rule 6(6 s, 1956. Additionally, since Sahdev lus area could not have been decla uired under Section 24-A(1) of the d Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceilin It was further pleaded that Sahdev Chandrapal Singh vide registered sa Shiv Chandrapal Singh in August 1 nherited the suit property as his lega The plaintiff assailed the subse whereby the suit land was allotted t it was a mere consequence of the v Regular Second Appeals arise out o ssed by the learned First Appellat 1 rendered by the learned Sub Judge lve identical questions of law and mon judgment. d clarity, the facts are being noticed Raj Dulari v. State of Haryana and s arisen. plaintiff Smt. Raj Dulari pleaded tha s in cultivating possession of the sui ttedly joint and had never been of the suit land, was earlier declared s declared surplus vide order dated s Area), Sirsa. The gravamen of th ated 29.01.1963 was illegal, null and gh was a minor, without appointin der XXXII Rule 3 CPC. It was furthe aring was afforded to Sahdev Singh e 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land dev Singh was only a co-sharer, hi eclared without first separating hi the Punjab Security of Land Tenure eiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. dev Singh sold his share in the join d sale deed dated 13.04.1972. Afte st 1986, the plaintiff and proform legal heirs. bsequent allotment order dated ted to defendants No.3 to 20, on the he void surplus declaration and had ut of llate udge and ticed and that e suit been lared ated f the l and nting rther ingh, Land r, his g his nure joint After orma ated n the had JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2551 of 1995 been passed with pleadings, the pl defendants from 4.1 Defe (State of Harya objections regard valuation. On me lawful and that vested in the S 03.08.1987. 4.2 Defe lawful allotment orders dated 29.0 5. Findi appreciating the (i) Sahdev Singh without complian (ii) No notice or prior to declaring (iii) The land was or Section 14(1) o (iv) Both impugn inoperative; and (v) The Civil Cour Cons 6. Proc Haryana and the Only defendants 1995 Page N: 3 of 5 without issuing any notice to the o e plaintiff sought a decree of perm rom interfering with her ownership Defence Set Up by the State and Al aryana and surplus/allotment a garding jurisdiction of the Civil Cour n merits, it was pleaded that the s hat upon enforcement of the ceili e State and was validly allotted Defendants No.3 to 20 filed a sepa ent and delivery of possession, an 29.01.1963 and 03.08.1987. Findings of the Trial Court :Upon the oral and documentary evidence ngh was a minor on 29.01.1963 an pliance of Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC; e or opportunity of hearing had b ring surplus area; was joint and no proceedings under (1) of the 1972 Act had been undert ugned orders dated 29.01.1963 and and ourt had jurisdiction and the suit w Consequently, the suit was decreed Proceedings before the First Appell the competent authorities did not ants No.3 to 20 preferred an appe he owner or his legal heirs. On thes ermanent injunction restraining the hip and possession. d Allottees : Defendants No.1 and 2 t authorities) raised preliminar Court, limitation, maintainability and he surplus declaration of 1963 wa ceiling law, the surplus land stood ted to defendants No.3 to 20 on separate written statement claimin , and defended the validity of both pon framing necessary issues and nce, the learned Trial Court held: 3 and the surplus order was passed d been afforded to the landowne nder Section 24-A(1) of the 1953 Ac dertaken; and 03.08.1987 were null, void and it was within limitation. eed on 31.10.1991. ppellate Court :Notably, the State o not challenge the trial court decree appeal. The learned First Appellat these g the nd 2 inary y and was tood 0 on ming both and ssed wner 3 Act and te of cree. llate JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2551 of 1995 Court, after re-ap Court and dismis 7. Cont learned counsel f (a) Sahdev Sin against the surplu (b) Notice to been served; (c) Surplus lan ceiling law, rende (d) The plea o (e) Civil Court 8. Per c the concurrent fi appellants had 24.08.1990, whic 9. Anal both the sides concurrent findin clearly establishe minor on 29.01.1 appointed any gu Order XXXII Rule 10. Equa mandates notice The record is con on behalf of Sah Haryana v. Vinod to be mandatory 1995 Page N: 4 of 5 appreciating the entire evidence, missed the appeal vide judgment d Contentions in Second Appeal : sel for the appellants primarily cont v Singh was not a minor in 1963 a urplus order of 1962; to Sahdev was either not require s land vested automatically in the endering the 1972 sale as void; ea of minority could not be raised by ourt jurisdiction was barred and the Per contra, learned counsel for the p nt findings and further pointed out ad already been cancelled by t which order had attained finality. Analysis and Legal Reasoning : Ha es and perusal of record, this C indings recorded by both Courts b lishes Sahdev Singh’s date of birth .01.1963. The surplus order neithe y guardian to represent him. Such ule 3 CPC, is a nullity in the eyes of Equally, Rule 6(6) of the Punjab tice and opportunity of hearing prio conspicuously silent regarding serv Sahdev Singh. The Full Bench jud inod Kumar1986 (1) PLR 222 squa tory. nce, affirmed all findings of the Tria nt dated 05.04.1995. l :In the present second appeals contended that: 63 as he had earlier filed an appea uired or must be deemed to have the State upon enforcement of the d by vendees; and the suit was time-barred. the plaintiffs-respondents supported out that the allotment in favour o y the Financial Commissioner on Having considered submissions o is Court finds no infirmity in the rts below. The evidence on record irth as 24.09.1945, rendering him ither described him as a minor no uch an order, passed in violation o s of law. jab Security of Land Tenure Rule prior to declaration of surplus area service of any notice or appearanc judgment of this Court in State of quarely applies, holding such notice Trial eals, peal have f the orted ur of on ns of the cord im a r nor on of Rules area. ance te of otice JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2551 of 1995 11. Furt holding. Without A(1) of the 195 numbers from a these statutory p 12. Once void ab initio, the to the ground. 13. Limi order can be ign order was passed 14. The statutory provisi position stands re 15. Effec position that the Financial Comm been challenged title or interest in 16. Conc substantial quest fact and law reco appreciation of interference. 17. Acco order as to costs. 21.01.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Uplo 1995 Page N: 5 of 5 Further, Sahdev Singh was admitte hout separation of his share through 1953 Act, or Section 14(1) of th m a joint khewat could lawfully be d ry provisions strikes at the very roo Once the foundational surplus orde , the subsequent allotment order d Limitation does not come to the a ignored and the cause of action ssed in 1987, which was promptly c The bar of Civil Court jurisdiction ovisions and principles of natural j ds reaffirmed by consistent judicial Effect of Cancellation of Allotment t the allotment in favour of the a mmissioner, Haryana, on 24.08.199 ged till date. The appellants, ther st in the suit land even otherwise. Conclusion : In view of the foregoin uestion of law arising for considera recorded by the Courts below are of evidence and settled legal Accordingly, both Regular Second osts. hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : January 21, 2026 mittedly a co-sharer in a vast join ough proceedings under Section 24 f the 1972 Act, no specific khasr be declared surplus. The violation o root of the surplus declaration. order dated 29.01.1963 is held to be er dated 03.08.1987 necessarily fall he aid of the appellants, as a void ion arose only when the allotmen tly challenged. tion is equally inapplicable where ral justice have been violated. Thi icial precedents. ent : Still further, it is an admitted e appellants was cancelled by the .1990, and the said order has no therefore, have no subsisting right se. going discussion, this Court finds no deration. The concurrent findings o are well-reasoned, based on prope legal principles, and warrant no nd Appeals are dismissed, with no (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE joint n 24- hasra on of to be falls void ment here This itted the s not right, s no gs of oper t no h no JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document