Regular Second Appeal No.1205 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-29.6.2010 Mange Ram and Kali Ram ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORUM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The challenge in this appeal, by the appellant-plaintiffs Mange Ram and Kali Ram sons of Rulia Ram, is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.1.2008, whereby, the trial Court has dismissed their suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They have also assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.8.2009, vide which, the lower Appellate Court has dismissed their appeal as well. 2. It is not a matter of dispute that in the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court, inter-alia, framed issue No.5, as to whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred, as per section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for brevity “the Land Tenures Act”) and under section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short “the Land Holdings Act”). While deciding this issue in favour of the respondent-defendants, the trial Court has recorded a finding that in the present case, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under section 25 of the Land Tenures Act and section 26 of the Land Holdings Act. The lower Appellate Court has also upheld the finding of the trial Court in this respect. Regular Second Appeal No.1205 of 2010 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellants did not point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments, in this respect and miserably failed to show as to how the civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain such suit, challenging the action of the authorities declaring the land in dispute as surplus as back as on 15.9.1960, under the provisions of the aforementioned Acts. 4. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the present appeal be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to approach the authorities to redress their grievances, under the provisions of the Land Holdings Act. 5. In this view of the matter, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty to the appellants to avail their appropriate remedy under the Land Holdings Act in accordance with law. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 29.6.2010 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No