IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3041-C of 2009 in RSA No.1044 of 2009 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 11.08.2009 Rajinder ...Appellant versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration and for permanent injunction, praying that he was the tenant over the suit property and could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The following questions of law have been proposed: a) Whether the plaintiff recorded as tenant in possession of land for more than 30 years in the revenue record is not entitled to grant of permanent injunction against forcible dispossession and can be dispossessed only in due course of law? b) Whether the plaintiff in possession of agricultural land for the last more than 30 years on payment of fixed rent which is nominal and which has never been increased and where tenants has never been ejected is not entitled to grant of declaration of having become owner on account of having RSA No.1044 of 2009 -2- acquired right of occupancy? c) Whether the land in dispute could be said to have been declared surplus in the absence of any order having been produced in this regard? d) Whether a tenant in possession of land which are sought to be declared surplus in the hands of the big land owners, is not entitled to issue of notice under the provisions of the Act of 1953 and whether non issuance of notice is not binding on the tenant? e) Whether under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1972 the right of tenants are curtailed without such land being declared surplus or are said to vest in the State Government? f) Whether the learned Courts having misread and misconstrued the documentary evidence produced on record and have failed to consider the oral evidence produced on record and whether the perverse approach of the learned Courts below is not illegal and the judgment and decree passed thereon are liable to be set aside and quashed? g) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are not liable to be set aside and reversed? Question (a) (b) (d) & (e) are questions of law. However, on facts the appellant has not been able to prove that he was tenant on the land in dispute prior to the order of RSA No.1044 of 2009 -3- declaration of surplus. That being so there is no question of protection under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act. Thus, questions No.a, b, d & e do not arise in this case. In regard to question No.(c), suffice it to say that the Lower Appellate Court has specifically noticed that the appellant had moved an application for allotment of land in dispute being eligible tenant, thus the question proposed does not arise. Question No.(f) & (g) are questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such mis-reading of evidence so as to render them perverse. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay has been rendered infructuous and dismissed. August 11, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE