R.S.A.No. 2603 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2603 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Major Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Simarjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that plaintiff No.1 and his brother Kartar Singh @ Jaggar Singh were owner in possession of the suit land. The land was allotted to the plaintiffs by the State under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955. Brother of plaintiff No.1 died and his children, who were minor, faced destitution. Taking advantage of the said fact, defendant forcibly took possession of the suit land. When plaintiff Major Singh R.S.A.No. 2603 of 2009 2 returned back to his family, he found that possession of the suit land had been illegally taken by the defendant. Defendant, in his written statement averred that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit property. In fact, the State had illegally declared the suit land as surplus in the hands of the defendant. However, later on, it was held that the defendant did not have any surplus land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary cause of action ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.2007. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismisised. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the R.S.A.No. 2603 of 2009 3 opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the suit land vested in the plaintiffs, on account of surplus proceedings carried out by the State. The possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiffs on the basis of report dated 29.11.1963 Ex.P-3. However, the case of the defendant was that the said document was merely a paper transaction. In fact, the actual possession had not been handed over to the plaintiffs. An appeal was pending before the Collector qua declaration of surplus land in the hands of Partap Singh. It has come on record that the surplus proceedings qua the land belonging to Partap Singh continued till the year 2007. Vide Ex.D-2, Collector Agrarian Talwandi Sabo held that Partap Singh was not having any surplus land. Since in the surplus proceedings, it was finally held that Partap Singh was not having any surplus land, the possession of the land was liable to be retained by the defendant. Plaintiffs were allottees qua the surplus land. The plaintiffs could get the land only if it was declared to be surplus in the hands of Partap Singh. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 28, 2011 R.S.A.No. 2603 of 2009 4 anita