IMPORTANT POINT
Section 26 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court so far as matters which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by Financial Commissioner, Commissioner, Collector or Prescribed Authority.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellants.

2. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellants filed suit for declaration on 7.9.1991 to the effect that they are the owners in possession of ½ share of the land measuring 155 kanals 4 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated in village Kairanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa and the order of allotment and declaration of surplus area so far as the said land is concerned are ineffective, inoperative and against the principles of natural justice, null and void and as such not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa in Civil Suit No.1054 of 1989. Respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was assigned to learned Additional District Judge who by his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1997 set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. A second appeal was carried before the High Court which by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal holding that since Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (in short the Act) provides that no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of the contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under the Act, or settle any matter which under the Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority; the suit was not maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first Appellate Court and the High Court were not justified in their conclusion.

4. Case of the appellants-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants in the suit is as follows:

5. According to the plaintiffs Jagmal, son of Nanhu was a big land owner under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, (in short Tenures Act) and his surplus area case was decided on 30.12.1961 in old khasra numbers. After the consideration, no proceedings under Section 25 A(ii) under Tenures Act or under Section 14(1) of the Act were initiated against the plaintiffs or said Jagmal. By Civil Court decree of 1970, the plaintiffs got the suit land from Jagmal, the grandfather of the plaintiffs and mutation No.413 dated 20.2.1970 was sanctioned in their favour and since then they are recorded as owners in possession of the suit land and have never been summoned, heard and they have not received any notice from the revenue officers for any proceedings. Land in dispute was never declared surplus and they are transferees from Jagmal. Mutation No.610 dated 26.7.1982 has been attested in favour of the State of Haryana on the basis of the order dated 26.9.1980, which is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as the plaintiffs were not parties to that order nor they were summoned or heard. Similarly, the order dated 8.3.1981 allotting the land is also null and void because they were also not party to that order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. In the written statement filed refuting the statement made in the plaint defendants stated that the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of allottees as the disputed land has been allotted vide order dated 8.3.1981; that the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiffs have not availed of the remedies provided under the Act and that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit.

7. On merits, it was pleaded that Jagmal son of Nanu Ram, a big land owner transferred the suit lan