RSA No.2285 of 2005 ..6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2285 of 2005 Date of Decision: 17.11.2009. Mohan Lal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. * * * Sabina,J.(Oral) Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.)Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment read as under:- “2. The appellants are owners in possession of the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the land in suit). Plaintiff-appellant Mohan Lal and one Chirnaji Lal RSA No.2285 of 2005 ..6. (father of plaintiffs-appellants no.2 to 4) had purchased that land from their predecessor-in-interest namely Kishan Pal son of Jagan Nath resident of Village Nanu Kalan, vide registered sale deed dated 9.10.1959. A mutation(no.760) on the basis of that transaction, was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants on 13.10.1960. The original khasra numbers of that land had undergone a change and it presently bears numbers which stand indicated in para no.1 of the plaint. After the purchase, the appellants are in cultivating possession of that land without any interruption. They wanted to raise a tractor loan from a rural bank. For that purpose, they obtained copy of Jamabandi from the village Patwari. From perusal of that copy, it came to their notice that the land in suit had been illegally mutated in the name of defendant-respondent on 24.11.1983 vide mutation no1758. That mutation is null and void and is liable to be set aside on the following counts: “a) That mutation no.1758 was passed secretly without knowledge and notice of plaintiffs: b) That no valid orders were passed by S.D.L.(C) Gurgaon or any other competent authority on 15.10.1982 or on any date for declaring suit land surplus: c) That plaintiffs were owners of suit land on 15.10.82 and as per settled principles of law and justice opportunity must be given to owner of land prior to declaring land as surplus; d) That as per Notification of Haryana Govt. Memo No.6632-AR (II)-76/33309 dated 29.10.76 from Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, RSA No.2285 of 2005 ..6. Revenue Department Chandigarh land in suit could not be declared surplus and exempted from Pool of Surplus. Thus order, if any, declaring suit land surplus are illegal, void and without jurisdiction. e) That provisions of Act have not been complied with prior to declaring land surplus and proceeding adopted by defendant in getting land declared surplus and mutation in favour of defendant are illegal and against principles of natural justice. f) That plaintiffs are/were small land owners between 30.7.1958 to 23.12.1972 and plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers who are not related to their vendors.” 3. The defendants-respondents are inclined to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs-appellants from the land in suit and threat has also been held out that the land aforesaid would be allotted to third persons. 4. It was on the above averments that the plaintiff- appellant applied for the grant of “a decree for declaration that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land fully detailed and described in para no.1 of the plaint.” Also sought was a declaration that the defendant-respondent has no right, title or interest in that land. The appellant also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants- respondent from forcibly dispossessing them from the suit land. 5. The defendant-respondent pleaded bar of civil court jurisdiction in the light of the provisions of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972(hereinafter referred RSA No.2285 of 2005 ..6. to as the 1972 Act) and Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953(hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act). The maintainability of the suit in the present form was challenged and bar of estoppel(by act and conduct) was pleaded. The suit was also averred to be time barred. It was alleged that the land belonging to a big land owner had been declared surplus under the old Act of 1953 and it vested in the Government of Haryana in terms of Section 12(3) of the 1972 Act. On merits, it was averred that “It is submitted that the suuit land and others land has been declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953 in the year 1959-60 by the big landowner Kishan Pal son of Shri Jagan Nath resident of village Nanu Kalan and that the suit land has been vested to the State of Haryana under Section 12 (3) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act,1972”. The further averment, in the context, was that “the mutation no.1753 dated 24.11.1983 is legally mutated in the name of defendant/State of Haryana by the order of S.D.O.(Civil) passed on 15.10.82 under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1972. That the mutation no.1758 legally sanctioned in the open court(Jalsa-i-am) in village Nanukalan in the presence of Lambardar and villages. The plaintiffs have full sanctioning of the mutation no.1758 in favour of Haryana State”. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land as mentioned in the para no.1 of the plaint? OPP. RSA No.2285 of 2005 ..6. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 8. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff based their claim on sale deed dated 09.10.1959 Ex.PW3/A executed by the owner in their favour. The case of the plaintiff further was that the mutation no.1758 dated 15.10.1982 had been sanctioned at the back of the plaintiffs and without giving them any opportunity of hearing. However plaintiff Ami Chand while appearing in the witness box as PW1 in his cross-examination, deposed that when he had purchased the land from Krishan Lal, he had come to know that the land of Kishan Lal had been declared surplus and he did not make any enquiry with regard to khasra numbers which had been declared surplus. He admitted that Kishan Lal was a big land owner and the land exceeding the prescribed limit of Kishan Lal had vested in the State Government after it was declared surplus. After the year 1983, Haryana Government had been described as owner of the suit land in the revenue record. DW-1 Abdul Hak deposed RSA No.2285 of 2005 ..6. that the land in dispute had been purchased by the plaintiffs on 09.10.1959 whereas the surplus land in the hands of big land owner could not be sold after 30.07.1958. The land which has been declared surplus has to be utilized as per Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1972. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 17th Nov.2009. (SABINA) Seema-II Judge