RSA No. 2581 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT I. State of Haryana & Anr. Rulia II. State of Haryana & Anr. Mehdi Hassan @ Hemdi Shah III. State of Haryana & Anr. Jati Ram IV. State of Haryana Ram Kishan & Ors. (LRs of Antu Ram) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana For the appellants. Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate For the respondents. Present at the time of pronouncement: RSA No. 2581 of 1999 Page N: 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Reserved on: 16.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 RSA No. 2581 of 1999(O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Versus RSA No. 4164 of 1999 State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Mehdi Hassan @ Hemdi Shah RSA No. 4193 of 1999 State of Haryana & Anr. Versus RSA No. 4194 of 1999 State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Ram Kishan & Ors. (LRs of Antu Ram) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana For the appellants. Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate For the respondents. Present at the time of pronouncement: None *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 16.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 RSA No. 2581 of 1999(O&M) …Appellants …Respondent RSA No. 4164 of 1999 …Appellants …Respondent RSA No. 4193 of 1999 …Appellants …Respondent RSA No. 4194 of 1999 …Appellants …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Appellants Respondent Appellants Respondent Appellants Respondent Appellants Respondents RSA No. 2581 of 1999 DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals as titled above, as all of them involve common facts. 2. These four appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana assailing the concurrent these cases for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, regarding the suit property involved in each of the case, were decreed by the trial Court; and the appeals file Appellate Court, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. 3. Facts are being noticed from the RSA Haryana v. Jatiram). 4. The suit land was declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiff in 1963 under Section 20(B) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. The plaintiff was put in possession as tenant and, after investing labour and money, he made the land cultivable. In 197 per acre. The plaintiff deposited the entire sale consideration on 01.03.1973 and since then remained in possession without payment of revenue record continued to describe the plain defendants sought to exploit by proposing a re sought a declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession. 5. The stand of the State was that the plaintiff continued only as a lessee, whose lease period had expired, and that the application for transfer was still pending since the Settlement Officer never confirmed the sale. It was also urged that the Tehsildar (Sales) lacked competence to transfer the land, and further that the Civ 6. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court recorded:  Till 1973, the plaintiff remained a tenant but thereafter deposited the entire sale price in terms of the order of the Tehsildar (Sales) dated 26.02.1973. RSA No. 2581 of 1999 Page N: 2 of 4 DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals as titled above, as all of them involve common facts. These four appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suits filed by the plaintiffs of these cases for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, regarding the suit property involved in each of the case, were decreed by the trial Court; and the appeals filed by the State were dismissed by the First Appellate Court, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. Facts are being noticed from the RSA Haryana v. Jatiram). The suit land was declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiff in 1963 under Section 20(B) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. The plaintiff was put in possession as tenant and, after investing labour and money, he made the land cultivable. In 1973, the land was auctioned at the reserved price of per acre. The plaintiff deposited the entire sale consideration on 01.03.1973 and since then remained in possession without payment of revenue record continued to describe the plain defendants sought to exploit by proposing a re sought a declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession. The stand of the State was that the plaintiff continued only as a ee, whose lease period had expired, and that the application for transfer was still pending since the Settlement Officer never confirmed the sale. It was also urged that the Tehsildar (Sales) lacked competence to transfer the land, and further that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court recorded: Till 1973, the plaintiff remained a tenant but thereafter deposited the entire sale price in terms of the order of the Tehsildar (Sales) dated 26.02.1973. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals as titled above, as all of These four appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana assailing findings of the Courts below. The suits filed by the plaintiffs of these cases for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, regarding the suit property involved in each of the case, were decreed by the d by the State were dismissed by the First Appellate Court, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. Facts are being noticed from the RSA - 4193 of 1999 (State of The suit land was declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiff in 1963 under Section 20(B) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. The plaintiff was put in possession as tenant and, after investing labour and money, he made 3, the land was auctioned at the reserved price of ₹40 per acre. The plaintiff deposited the entire sale consideration on 01.03.1973 and since then remained in possession without payment of batai. However, the revenue record continued to describe the plaintiff as a tenant, which the defendants sought to exploit by proposing a re-auction. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession. The stand of the State was that the plaintiff continued only as a ee, whose lease period had expired, and that the application for transfer was still pending since the Settlement Officer never confirmed the sale. It was also urged that the Tehsildar (Sales) lacked competence to transfer the land, and il Court’s jurisdiction was barred. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court recorded: Till 1973, the plaintiff remained a tenant but thereafter deposited the entire sale price in terms of the order of the Tehsildar (Sales) dated This judgment shall dispose of four appeals as titled above, as all of These four appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana assailing findings of the Courts below. The suits filed by the plaintiffs of these cases for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, regarding the suit property involved in each of the case, were decreed by the d by the State were dismissed by the First (State of The suit land was declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiff in 1963 under Section 20(B) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. The plaintiff was put in possession as tenant and, after investing labour and money, he made ₹40 per acre. The plaintiff deposited the entire sale consideration on 01.03.1973 and However, the tiff as a tenant, which the auction. The plaintiff, therefore, The stand of the State was that the plaintiff continued only as a ee, whose lease period had expired, and that the application for transfer was still pending since the Settlement Officer never confirmed the sale. It was also urged that the Tehsildar (Sales) lacked competence to transfer the land, and Till 1973, the plaintiff remained a tenant but thereafter deposited the entire sale price in terms of the order of the Tehsildar (Sales) dated RSA No. 2581 of 1999  The file was sent for confirmation to the Settlement Officer, who on 26.03.1974 raised only two objections certified, and (ii) lease file not attached. These were technical in nature and could have been cured easily.  Despite laps defects, which was negligence on their part, not the plaintiff’s.  Significantly, after deposit of sale price, the plaintiff ceased paying and the State never raised any objection or initia This conduct showed that even the defendants treated him as owner in possession. 7. The Court held that once the plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements and deposited the sale price, proprietary rights vested in him. Failure of officials to remove minor defects could not defeat such substantive rights. The State, instead of correcting the lapse, attempted to deny the plaintiff’s rights by taking hyper held the plaintiff contrary revenue entries illegal, restrained the State from interference, and directed issuance of the sale certificate. 8. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.1998, affirmed the tr ownership rights and the objections of the Settlement Officer were inconsequential. 9. In regular State argued that the Civil Court’s juri unable to dispute the admitted facts:  Plaintiff was put in possession as tenant in 1963.  In 1973, land was sold to him and he deposited the entire consideration.  No steps were taken by the State for nearly two decades to either recover batai or to regularize the technical objections. RSA No. 2581 of 1999 Page N: 3 of 4 ile was sent for confirmation to the Settlement Officer, who on 26.03.1974 raised only two objections certified, and (ii) lease file not attached. These were technical in nature and could have been cured easily. Despite lapse of nearly two decades, the officials failed to remove these defects, which was negligence on their part, not the plaintiff’s. Significantly, after deposit of sale price, the plaintiff ceased paying and the State never raised any objection or initia This conduct showed that even the defendants treated him as owner in possession. The Court held that once the plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements and deposited the sale price, proprietary rights vested in m. Failure of officials to remove minor defects could not defeat such substantive rights. The State, instead of correcting the lapse, attempted to deny the plaintiff’s rights by taking hyper-technical pleas. Accordingly, the trial Court held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land, declared the contrary revenue entries illegal, restrained the State from interference, and directed issuance of the sale certificate. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.1998, affirmed the trial court findings, holding that the plaintiff had acquired ownership rights and the objections of the Settlement Officer were inconsequential. regular second appeal before this court, the learned AAG for the State argued that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred. However, he was unable to dispute the admitted facts: Plaintiff was put in possession as tenant in 1963. In 1973, land was sold to him and he deposited the entire consideration. No steps were taken by the State for nearly two decades to either recover or to regularize the technical objections. ile was sent for confirmation to the Settlement Officer, who on 26.03.1974 raised only two objections – (i) khasra girdawari copy not certified, and (ii) lease file not attached. These were technical in nature e of nearly two decades, the officials failed to remove these defects, which was negligence on their part, not the plaintiff’s. Significantly, after deposit of sale price, the plaintiff ceased paying batai and the State never raised any objection or initiated recovery proceedings. This conduct showed that even the defendants treated him as owner in The Court held that once the plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements and deposited the sale price, proprietary rights vested in m. Failure of officials to remove minor defects could not defeat such substantive rights. The State, instead of correcting the lapse, attempted to deny technical pleas. Accordingly, the trial Court to be owner in possession of the suit land, declared the contrary revenue entries illegal, restrained the State from interference, and The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.1998, ial court findings, holding that the plaintiff had acquired ownership rights and the objections of the Settlement Officer were second appeal before this court, the learned AAG for the sdiction was barred. However, he was Plaintiff was put in possession as tenant in 1963. In 1973, land was sold to him and he deposited the entire consideration. No steps were taken by the State for nearly two decades to either recover or to regularize the technical objections. ile was sent for confirmation to the Settlement Officer, who on (i) khasra girdawari copy not certified, and (ii) lease file not attached. These were technical in nature e of nearly two decades, the officials failed to remove these batai ted recovery proceedings. This conduct showed that even the defendants treated him as owner in The Court held that once the plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements and deposited the sale price, proprietary rights vested in m. Failure of officials to remove minor defects could not defeat such substantive rights. The State, instead of correcting the lapse, attempted to deny technical pleas. Accordingly, the trial Court to be owner in possession of the suit land, declared the contrary revenue entries illegal, restrained the State from interference, and The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.1998, ial court findings, holding that the plaintiff had acquired ownership rights and the objections of the Settlement Officer were second appeal before this court, the learned AAG for the sdiction was barred. However, he was In 1973, land was sold to him and he deposited the entire consideration. No steps were taken by the State for nearly two decades to either recover RSA No. 2581 of 1999 10. There is no merit in the appeal. This Court finds that prolonged silence of the State estopped it from denying proprietary righ The objections of the Settlement Officer being formal in nature could not override the plaintiff’s substantive right arising from payment of full consideration and continuous possession. The plea of jurisdiction was rightly rejected on the ground that where valuable civil rights are threatened by inaction of the authorities, recourse to the Civil Court is not barred. 11. Conclusion: concurrently held the plaintiff to be owner in po State having failed to point out any legal infirmity, there is no ground to interfere. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs. 18.09.2025 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No. 2581 of 1999 Page N: 4 of 4 There is no merit in the appeal. This Court finds that prolonged silence of the State estopped it from denying proprietary righ The objections of the Settlement Officer being formal in nature could not override the plaintiff’s substantive right arising from payment of full consideration and continuous possession. The plea of jurisdiction was rightly the ground that where valuable civil rights are threatened by inaction of the authorities, recourse to the Civil Court is not barred. Conclusion: Consequently, it is held that concurrently held the plaintiff to be owner in po State having failed to point out any legal infirmity, there is no ground to interfere. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No There is no merit in the appeal. This Court finds that prolonged silence of the State estopped it from denying proprietary rights to the plaintiff. The objections of the Settlement Officer being formal in nature could not override the plaintiff’s substantive right arising from payment of full consideration and continuous possession. The plea of jurisdiction was rightly the ground that where valuable civil rights are threatened by inaction of the authorities, recourse to the Civil Court is not barred. Consequently, it is held that both Courts below having concurrently held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land, and the State having failed to point out any legal infirmity, there is no ground to interfere. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE There is no merit in the appeal. This Court finds that prolonged ts to the plaintiff. The objections of the Settlement Officer being formal in nature could not override the plaintiff’s substantive right arising from payment of full consideration and continuous possession. The plea of jurisdiction was rightly the ground that where valuable civil rights are threatened by both Courts below having ssession of the suit land, and the State having failed to point out any legal infirmity, there is no ground to