422 RSA NolO7O of 1985 1 lN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA N02070 of 1985 Dateofdecision 29 082010 StateofHaryana Appellant 1 versus 0 0 Murari and others I Respondents D I Present Mr AjayGulat DAG Haryanafor the appellant Mr Onkar Rai Advocate for Nosl 5 and 6 Z Mr Nilesh BhardwajAdvocate f e RSA No2071 of 1985 08 State of Haryana CA2 Appellant ma7 Z versus Om lnder Singhand others Respondents Presentl Mr AjayGulati DAG Haryanafor theappellant Mr Nilesh BhardwajAdvocate RSA N01072 of 1985 StateofHaryana Appellant versus . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 423 RSA N02O7O of 1985 2 Kirori CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE KCPUIU Present Mr AjayGulati DAG Haryanafor theappellant Mr Onkar Rai Advocate for Nos2 and 3 Mr Nilesh Bhardwa Advocate 1 L CPUIU J 0 0 By this common judgmentI intend to disposeof RSA I NoO7Oof 1985RSA Nol071 of 1985 and RSA N02072 of D I 1985 preferredby the of Haryana as the Z common law pointis involved thoughabout different parcelsof land 4 arose out of the same and decreespassedby the Courts below Lr The facts are beingtakenfrom RSA No070 of 1985 I c8 The Stateof Haryanahas challenged thejudgmentand decree a0 dated 253985 passedby Mr DDYadav Additional District Judge Z Faridabad vide which the appealpreferredby the tl againstthe judgment and decree dated 1261984 passedby Shri Virender Singh Sub JudgeIInd Class Palwal dismissing the sult of the plaintiffs wasacceptedafter settingaside thejudgment and decreedated 1261984 Shorn off unnecessary details the case of the plaintiffsas set forth in theplaintis that the fatherofthe plaintiffswas a tenant at will over land bearingold khewatlkhatoniNo 1159 Rect No83 6601 8911 109mlll 90min 60 71total measuring10 bighas7 biswas situated within the revenue estate of villageBaghpurKalan Tehsil Palwal District Faridabad During consolidation the plaintiffsgot the . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 424 RSA N02070 of 1985 3 followingnew numbersin exchange KhewatlKhatoni No 351111 RectVo 6011612621392412 4925 68e09 Rect No 8314001 5 e096 08 7 68091411 623 15116239 total 50 kanals 3 marlas situated within the reventie estate of villageBhagpurKalan Tehsil Palwal District Faridabad 1 C It has been furtheraverredbytheplaintiffsthat the land ln SUlt 0 was illegallydeclared surplusby the defendant Nol without servingany 0 Iegal notice upon them This land is the tenants pennissible area and could I D not be declared surplusunder the law of land Therefore the impugned order is iliegalnull and void and without jurisdictionThe plaintiffshas Z succeededto the rightsof their father aer his death and has acquired 2 C possessory rights over the land in suit as tenants at will I lt is tiirther pleadedthat the SUit land was purchasedby the c8 fatherofthe plaintiffsvide benami transactiondated251967 and as such a0 his rightsare protectedunder section 17A of the PunjabSecurityof Land J Z Tenures Act 1953 It has been further averredthat the land had not been tl utilized beforethe year 1968and as such the land 111 su constltutes a part oftenants permissible area and could not have beenallotted in favour ofthe other defendants The State of Haryanainitiated allotment of the land in suit in the monthsof December 1981and January1982without having a rightto do so Hence the suit On notice the defendantsput in appearanceand filed written statementcontesting the averments madein theplaint It has been allegedby defendant No that the Court has no . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 425 RSA No070 of 1985 4 9 jurisdiction to entertalll and try the presentSUlt as it 1S speciallybarred under thePunjabSecurityofLand TenuresAct and theHaryanaCeilingon Land HoldingsAct lt has also beenaverredthatthe suit is bad for want of legalnoticeunder Sectioil 80 CPC From thepleadingsofpartiesfollowingissueswere framedl 1 Whethertheplaintiffs were tenants at will over the suit land C asalleged2lfso to what effect2OPP 0 2 Whether the suit land was wronglyand illegallydeclared 0 surplus land as alleged9 Ifso to what effect7OPP I D 3 Whether the suit land is within the permissiblearea of the plaintiffs as allegedin theplaintIf so to what effect2OPP Z 4Whether the plaintiffsis owner in of land as 2 0 alleged2 OPP I 5 Whether the civil court has got no urisdiction to try the a5 presentsuit2 OPD a1 6 Whether the suit is not maintainablefor want of notice2 7 Z OPDI tle 7 Whether the plaintiffshave no locus standi to Ole the presentsuit2OPD 8 Whethertheplaintdoesnot disclose any cause ofaction7 9 Whether the suit is barredbylimitation as alleged2 OPD 10Whether the plaintiffsare estoppedby their act and conduct2OPD 11Relief The partieshave led their respectiveevidence on the aforesaid 1SSues After appraisalofthe evidence the learnedtrial Court dismissedthe . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 426 A4 RSA No070 of 1985 5 suit ofthe plaintiffsvide judgmentand decreedated 1261984 Feelingdissatisfled with the judgmentand decree dated 1261984 plaintiffspreferred an appealbeforethe First Appellate Coun The learned Additional District Judge Faridabad vide judgment and decreedated 2531 985accepted theappeal Feelingdissatisfied with the above judgment and decreedated 1 L 253 1985 passedby learned Additional District Judge Faridabad 0 haspreferred the presentregularsecondappealbefore 0 this Court tD I have heard learned counsel for the partiesand have gone I through the recordsofthe case Z Learned counsel for the appellant has submittedthat Honble 2 ApexCourt in authority Devinder Sin2h and others VSe State of Harvana I and another 200615 SupremeCourt Cases 720 has held that civil Coun c8 has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit declaring the land as surplus in 00 7 Vlew of Section 26 and 18 of theHaryanaCeilingon Lands HoldingsAct Z 1972 It is tlrther submittedthat theauthorityJai Kishan Dass and others CL VS The Harvabna State and others 2010l21RCR ICivill 848 has again held thatjurisdiction ofthe Civil Court is barredto entertainsuchdispute Counsel for the appellanthas also relied upon the following authoritiesto supporthe abovesaid contention 1lISmtltadha Bai VS The State of Harvana 199733 PLR 638 4E221 121Azad vse Dharampal 1999121R0CaR1Civill 139 31 Lal Chand and others vse The Sub Divisional Offlcer . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 427 7 RSA No070 of 1985 6 V4 1CivillcumeAssistant Collector Ist Grae Dabwali District Sirsa and others 2001111All India Land Laws Reporter 557e It is further subinitted that the have themselves the SUlt throughsale deed thoughafter declaringthe land as surplusllhe plaintiffscannot claim themselvesto be the tenants as 1 well as owners ofthe property Their tenancyrights if any havemerged 0 into ownershiprights However the land has alreadybeen declared as 0 surplusSo the sale deed in farIourof does not confer 49 anylegalrightsandthe same is liable to be ignored I It ls furthersubmittedthatplaintiffhas the remedyto challenge Z the order of surplusbefore a competentCourt under thePunjabSecurityof 2 t Land Tenures Act 1956 Even ln Section 25 of the said Act it has been I laid down that validityof any cannot be challengedin any c25 Court or before any other authority exceptunderthe Act It is admittedcase O3 of thepartiesthat plaintiffshave not the order of declaring the 7 Z land as surplusbefore any underthe PunjabSecurity ofLand TenuresAct 1956 or undertheHaryanaCeilingon Lands Holdings Act 1972 So thejurisdictionof civil Court is barred Both the Courts below have committed grave error In holdingthat the plaintiffswere tenants and theyhave not been heard beforepassingthe order of surplus Some of the land has been renallotted The person to whom the land has beenallottedis the sufferer and the are in possesslon of the suit propertyeven for the Iast more than three decades without havingany legalrightin theproperty . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 428 7 RSA No070 of 1985 7 Learned counsel for the has further submittedthat suit ofthe plaintiffwas dismissedbythe trial Court The appealhas been accepted by the First AppellateCourt without takinginto account the fact that thejurisdiction ofcivil Court is barred Learned counsel for the has supported the judgmentof the First Appellate cour It is submitted that the First 1 C2 Appellate Court hasrightlyheld that no notice was issued to the plaintiff 0 beforepassing the order ofdeclaring the land as surplus The plaintiffwas 0 the tenant over the suit propertymuch priorto the declaringthe land as I surplusThe plaintiffs were entitledto choosethe area beinga tenant over the suit property Z So far as the sale deed in favour of plaintiffis concerned the C2 First Appellate Court hasrightlyheld that same does not affect therightsof I the plaintiffin the suit propertyas tenant It is the stand of the defendants c8 themselvesthat sale deed executed after declaring the land as surplusdoes a3 not confer any legalrighton the plaintiffThe appellantcannot blow hot me7 Z and cold in the same breath Ll It is further submittedby 60unse1for that the First AppellateCourt has returned a Sndingof fact that no notice was issuedto the beforedeclaringthe land as surpluslt 1S the basic principleof natural justicethat nobodyshould be condemned unheard This Court in authority Bha2 Mal and others vse Ram Murti and others reported IIl 2005 151LAR 691 has held that jurisdiction of the civil court is not barredwheretheprinciples ofnatural justicehavebeen violated That authorityis based uponthe numerous authorities handed . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 429 RSA No070 of 1985 8 4 1r down byHonble the Apex Court as mentionedin the said judgmentThe authoritiesreliedupon bythe Iearnedcounsel for the appellants are under the HaryanaCeilingon Land HoldingsAct 1972 In the presentcase the land was declaredsurplusunder the PunjabSecurityof Land Tenure Act 1953 No singleauthorityhas been submittedthatjurisdiction of the civil COUM 1Sbarredwherethe authoritieshave over stepthejurisdictionSo the 1 C prayer hasbeenmadefor dismissalofthe appeal 0 I have considered the submissionsmade by both the learned 0 counsel for thepartiesandhavegonethrough the recordsofthe case I D From the submissions made by both the sides following substantialquestion of law hasarisen Z le Whetherthejurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred on the factsofthe presentcase 7 I So far as the factual positionis concerned that has not been C8 disputed during the course a0 The First AppellateCourt has returned a Ondingof fact that Z plaintiff was the tenant for more than six years the statutoryperiodln Il respectofthe suit land It is also not disputed that land was declaredsurplus 111 the year 1958 and as per the provisionsof PunjabSecurityof Land Tenures Act 1956 the plaintiff7s9 were entitled for the pennissiblearea availableto thetenant It is also not disputeduringthe course of argument that no notice was issued to the plaintiffbefore declaringthe land as surplus The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted PunjabSecurityof Land Tenures Act 1956 to protectthe rightsof the tenant The Honble . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 430 RSA No070 of 1985 9 ApexCourt in Gurbax Singh VSe Stateof Puniab AIR 1964 SC 502 has that main purposeofthis Act seems to be 6i9Provide a of 30 standard acres to be a landownerltenant which he can retain for selflltivation iiIProvidesecurityof tenure to tenants by reducingtheir liabilityto ejectinent as speciedin Section 9 1 L 6iiilAscertain surplus areas and ensure resettlement of ejected 0 tenantson thoseareas 0 6ivl Fix maximum rent payablebytenants and I D v9 Confer rightson tenants to preempt and purchasetheir I tenancles in certain circumstances 5 Z The Act was enactedto providesecurity oftenure to tenants 2 by reducingtheir liabilityto ejectmentand combat the evil mass I evictions to ascertainsurplus areas and resettle lawfullyejected a tenants to flx maximum rent payableby tenants and to confer right 03 on tenantsto preemptand purchase their tenanciesin certain cases Z thus to makethe tiller the owner Om The legislationis basicallycalculatedto depriveowner of his propertyThe provisionsof law have to be strictlyconstrued It mustbe shown to havebeencomplied within letter and spirit DW1 RadheyLal Patwari hascategorically statedthat Form D was not prepared in which thepossession ofthe is depicted The deflnition ofthe permissible area is mentionedin clause ii 39ofPunjab SecurityofLand Tenures Act 19531 39 Permissible area in relation to a landowner or a tenant . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 431 91 J RSA NolO7O of 1985 10 PA means thirtystandard acres and where such thirtystandard acres on beingconverted into ordinaryacres exceeds sixty acres such sixtyacres Provided that i9no area under an orchard at the commencement of this Act shall be taken into account in computing the 1 l areal 0 6ii9for a displaced person 0 0a9 who hasbeenallottedland in excess of flRystandardacres I thepennissible area shall be flftystandardacres or one hundred I ordinary acres as the case may be Z 6bl who has been allotted land ln excess of thirtystandard 2 0 acres but Iess than flfty standardacres the area I shall be equalto his allottedarea c41 0 who has been allotted land less than thirtystandardacres C the pennissible area shall be thirtystandard acres including W1 Z any other land or parttheoreofifany that he owns in addition CL 1ExplanatiorFor the purpose of the area of a displacedperson the provisionsof provisio6iiJshall not applyto the heirs and successors of the displacedpersons to whom land is allotted Honble MrJustice Mlvlumar lll authorityBhag Mal and others case supra9has categorically held that Civil Court hasjurisdiction wheretheprinciplesofnatural justicehavebeen violated or there is wanton disregardto the statutoryprovisionsIn the said authorityFul l Bench . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 432 V RSA N02070 of 1985 11 of our own HighCourt laid down in case State of Han7ana V Vinod Kumar 1986 PLJ 161 has been relied upon The Full Bench consistedof Honble Five Judges ofthe ApexCourt in authoritiesreported in KatikaraChintamani Dora v Guatreddi AnnamanaidueAIR 1974 SC 1069 and Mls Kamla Mills Limited v State of Bombay AIR 1965 SC1942havebeenrelied upon wherein it hasbeenheld as under l 1 6l9 The Civil Court would still enjoyjurisdiction to examlne 0 the cases where the provisionsof a statute have not been 0 I compliedwith or the statutorytribunal has not acted in D conformitywith the ndamental principlesof judicial I procedure 5 Z b9 The Civil Court is also entitledto examineexact extent to t which the powers ofstatutorytribunalsare exclusive 70 I So far as authorityJai Kishan Dass and others case supral c8 relied upon by the iearned counsel for the appellant is concerned that a0 7 authority is distinguishableIn that case the land of the land owners was Z declaredsurplusand matter has becotneSnal 30 standardacres of Iand was tl allotted to the land owner in that case The tenant pennissiblearea was not in disputein that authorityand as such that authority is to thefactsofthe presentcase Authorities Devinder Sinh and others case ISUPra and SmteRadha Bais case Isupral are also on the same grounds In those authoritiesalso 30 acres land was allotted to the land owner and tenant permissible area was not in dispute in thoseauthorities . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 433 C r RSA No070 of 1985 12 Lal Chand and others case lsupral does not help the case of the appellantin any manner In that case there was dispute betweenthe landlord and the tenant and the tenant has not vested with tenants area and on that account the suit of the landlord was decreed So far as submissionsmade by counsel for the appellant that m C2 propertyln dispute has been by the plaintiffsand as such they 0 cannotclaim themselves as tenant is concernedthat submission is without 0 any substanceIt is the case ofappellant that sale deed does not confer any D rightupon plaintiffsas the same has been executed by land owner after I declaring the land surplusSo the said saledeedshave beenrightlyignored Z by theIst Appellate Court C2 In view of the above discussion the substantial question I raisedfor detenninationstandsdeterminedagainst the appellant c2S all the appeals are without any merit and the OO salnestandsdismissed 7 Z A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict tl compliance KeCePURI I 1e JUDGE August 24th 2010 SV 1 D 6J 1 1 . Rashmi 2012.05.15 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document