The importance of issuing notice to concerned parties before declaring land as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the protection of land transfers made prior to 30.7.1958 under the Act.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. State of Haryana has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, vide which suit of the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) was decreed and it was held that the orders dated 12.1.1961 and 23.11.1961 passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declaring the disputed land as surplus are illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 8 (respondents No. 3 to 9 herein) were restrained from taking possession of the suit land through the agency of defendant No. 1-State (appellant herein).

2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Rajo, daughter of plaintiff No. 1 and sister of plaintiff No. 2, had purchased the land in question for consideration from one Harphool vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.1958. Subsequently, the surplus proceedings regarding the land in question and other lands were initiated against Harphool under the provisions of the Act. In those proceedings, notice was issued only to Harphool and no notice was given to Smt. Rajo who had become owner of the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.1958. In pursuance of the notice, when Harphool appeared before the prescribed authority, he told regarding the sale of the land in question by him to Smt. Rajo. In spite of the said fact, no notice was issued either to Smt. Rajo or to the plaintiffs, who are her mother and sister, and the land in question was declared surplus vide orders dated 12.1.1961 and 23.11.1961. Subsequently, the same was allotted to defendants No. 2 to 8. When they tried to interfere into possession of the plaintiffs, the instant suit was filed alleging that the aforesaid orders are not binding on the plaintiffs as neither they nor their daughter and sister were heard and no notice was issued to them before passing these orders declaring the land in question as surplus area.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;-

1. Whether the orders dated 12.1.1961 and 23.11.1961 are null arid void? OPP

2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD

3. Whether a valid and proper notice has been served upon the defendant and if not to what effect? OPD

4. Whether the suit property has been property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged in para

4. of the written statement? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD

7. Relief.

4. On issue No. 1, it was held by both the Courts below that orders dated 12.1.1961 and 23.11.1961 are void. On issue No. 2, it was held that the civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, particularly when the impugned orders were passed without issuing any notice. The other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the said findings, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-State and have perused the record of the case.

6. The factum of purchase of land in question by Smt. Rajo, daughter and sister of the plaintiffs, vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.1958 from Harphool has not been disputed. It is also not disputed that before declaring the land in question as surplus by the aforesaid impugned orders, no notice was issued either to the plaintiffs or to their daughter and sister. However, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted, that such notice could not be issued as it was not disclosed before the prescribed authority that the land in question was sold by the big land owner Harphool. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that even though notice to the plaintiffs or their daughter and sister was not issued in the proceedings for declaring