Regular Second Appeal No. 120 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 21, 2008 State of Haryana and another ....Appellant versus Data Ram and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Imma Singh Kang, DAG Haryana Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by the State of Haryana is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2007 passed by the learned trial court whereby a suit for declaration with permanent injunction as a consequential relief pertaining to the land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Nanu Khurd, District Gurgaon, filed by the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) was decreed. Thereafter appeal filed by the State of Haryana was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon. This is how feeling aggrieved, the State of Haryana has come up in this appeal. Regular Second Appeal No. 120 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The short point in this case was as to whether the land in suit was surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 or under the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972. The sole point of argument raised by learned State counsel is that, in fact, the earlier notification dated 15.9.1976 under which the land was not found to be surplus was later on superseded by another notification. A perusal of the impugned judgments goes a long way to show that the suit land was earlier purchased by one Dhani Ram (predecessor-in- interest of the respondents) from Smt. Man Kaur, the then big landlady on 13.11.1959. From Dhani Ram, the suit land was purchased by the respondents. Admittedly, there was no relationship between Smt. Man Kaur and Dhani Ram and also between Dhani Ram and the present respondents. Later on notification dated 15.9.1976 was issued by the State Government exempting the land from being declared surplus if the same was sold prior to the year 1966 to the persons not related to the big land owners and that the same was not utilized by the State Government after being declared surplus. The third condition was that the person who had purchased the land had no other land other than the one purchased from the big land owners. In this regard, both the courts below have also relied upon the law laid down by this Court in case Vidya Sagar vs The State of Haryana and another, 1983 PLJ, 278. There is also no material on the file which could show that the aforesaid notification or the above cited ruling was ever over- ruled. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there Regular Second Appeal No. 120 of 2008 (O&M) -3- is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal for consideration by this Court. Dismissed in limine. Since no merit is found in this appeal, so no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay. ( Pritam Pal ) January 21, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'