RSA No. 877 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 877 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 07 , 2009 Harnesk Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for respondents No. 10 to 12. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for declaration that the order dated 6.7.84 vide which the land of Seth Nand Lal in his possession was declared surplus, was illegal. The two pleas taken were that firstly, on the appointed date the land was banjar and thus could not have been included in the definition of land at all and secondly, that even on that date the land in dispute was under RSA No. 877 of 2008(O&M) 2 the possession of tenants and thus should have been declared as tenants' permissible area. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the appellants having led affirmative evidence that the land in question was Banjar Qadim on 15.4.1953, the same could be included while determining the surplus area? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the impugned order having been passed without notice to the effected persons and in violation of the principle of natural justice, the suit filed by the appellants could be dismissed? Both the questions are pure questions of fact. With regard to question No. (a) both the courts have held that the appellant was not able to prove that the land was banjar on the appointed date. With regard to question No. (b) the following order was passed on 21.8.2009:- “Counsel for the State of Haryana has shown to the Court as also counsel for the appellants the proceedings whereby the land was declared surplus. As per the said proceedings, notice was duly served upon the predecessor of interest of the plaintiffs. Counsel for the appellants seeks a short adjournment. Adjourned to 7.9.2009. The record of proclamation and surplus area has been returned to counsel for the State of Haryana.” Learned counsel is not in a position to deny that the presence of the appellant was duly recorded on the date when the impugned order was passed. Consequently even this question of fact has to be decided against the appellant. RSA No. 877 of 2008(O&M) 3 Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 07, 2009 sunita