IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 681 of 2000 Date of Decision : August 18, 2009 State of Haryana through the Collector, Gurgaon .....Appellant Versus Smt. Sumitra Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Deepak Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for a decree of permanent injunction so as to permanently restrain the defendant- appellant from dispossessing them from the land in dispute. Vide judgment dated December 17, 1993, learned Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon allowed the suit and passed a decree of permanent injunction. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the defendant- appellant by filing the first appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on August 04, 1999. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant is now before this Court in a second appeal. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, the land in dispute was declared as surplus by the Collector, Rewari vide order dated 14.3.1961. However, till the filing of the suit, the surplus area, so declared, was not utilized by the State Government and, therefore, the succession opened after the death of Smt. Chandan Devi, who expired in R.S.A. No. 681 of 2000 -2- the year 1965, as a result of which her legal heirs became small land owners for the reason that the land in their possession did not exceed the permissible area prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short 'the 1953 Act') and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short 'the 1972 Act'). Mutation No. 1422 sanctioned on 21.10.1985 mutating the land in dispute in favour of Provincial Government was illegal, null and void as the suit land never vested in the State Government. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought the decree of permanent injunction. In its written statement, the defendant pleaded that when the land in dispute was declared surplus on 14.3.1961, it came to be automatically vested in the State Government when the 1972 Act came into being and, therefore, the land was legally mutated in favour of the State Government. Resultantly, the defendant was within its right to utilize the land by way of its allotment to eligible persons and the plaintiffs had no right to seek the injunction prayed for. Upto the time when Smt. Chandan Devi died, land, which had been declared surplus by the Collector, Rewari on 14.3.1961, had not been utilized by the State Government. Upon the death of Smt. Chandan Devi, the succession opened and all her legal heirs became small land owners as the land in their possession was not beyond their permissible area. In Som Nath v. State of Haryana, 1993 PLJ 89, it was held that when the land was declared surplus under the 1953 Act and the same was not utilized before the death of the land owner, the heirs of the deceased land owner could not be deprived benefit of R.S.A. No. 681 of 2000 -3- Section 10-B of the 1953 Act even after enforcement of the 1972 Act in view of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the latter Act. In such a situation, the surplus area was to be determined qua heirs of the deceased land owner. In Chuhar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 PLJ 71, it was held that where the allotment of surplus area was shown to have been made to the allottee but his possession was nowhere shown in the revenue record, such allotment could not be taken to have been made. Admittedly, the land had not been utilized till the time when mutation No. 1422 was sanctioned on 21.10.1985. At that point of time, all the legal heirs of Smt. Chandan Devi had become small land owners and, therefore, the land in their possession could not be considered to be beyond their permissible areas. The concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below, in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents, are neither perverse nor they can be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity. These findings are not open to attack in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 18, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO