Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1259
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Jhanji, J.
Jaswinder Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana Through Collector And Ors.
Regular Second Appeal No. 114 of 1996,
Civil Miscellaneous No. 1740 of 1996,
Decided On : OCTOBER 23, 1999
The land holdings of all family members must be taken into account for determining the permissible area under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Headnote:
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - SECTION 3(F), 3(M), 3(R), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 - LAND REFORMS - LAND CEILING - DETERMINATION OF PERMISSIBLE AREA - CLUBBING OF LAND HOLDINGS OF FAMILY MEMBERS - ADOPTION - VALIDITY OF ADOPTION DEED - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - RES JUDICATA.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, Jaswinder Singh, challenged the orders of the Authorities under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, declaring his land surplus and allotting it to other defendants. He claimed that he was adopted by Mukhtiar Singh before the appointed day and therefore his land should not have been clubbed with that of his father, Balbir Singh, for determining the permissible area. The plaintiff also challenged the validity of the adoption deed and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Authorities under the Act had jurisdiction to declare the plaintiff's land surplus by clubbing it with that of his father, as the Act requires the land holdings of all family members to be taken into account for determining the permissible area. The Court also found that the plaintiff was not adopted by Mukhtiar Singh before the appointed day and that the adoption deed was created only to save the land from being declared surplus. The Court further held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, but that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata as the plaintiff's father had already unsuccessfully challenged the same orders in a previous suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the Authorities under the Act had jurisdiction to declare the plaintiff's land surplus by clubbing it with that of his father? 2. Whether the plaintiff was adopted by Mukhtiar Singh before the appointed day? 3. Whether the adoption deed was valid? 4. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit? 5. Whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act requires the land holdings of all family members to be taken into account for determining the permissible area. 2. The plaintiff was not adopted by Mukhtiar Singh before the appointed day. 3. The adoption deed was created only to save the land from being declared surplus. 4. The Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. The suit was barred by the principle of res judicata as the plaintiff's father had already unsuccessfully challenged the same orders in a previous suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
V.K.Jhanji, J.
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaring the orders passed by the Authorities under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, in the case State v. Balbir Singh and in the suit titled Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana to be illegal, void and not binding on his rights.
2. In brief, the facts are that plaintiff, Jaswinder Singh (appellant herein) is natural son of Balbir Singh. On 5.8.1980, the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declared lands Surplus in the hands of Balbir Singh. Since the plaintiff was minor on the appointed day i.e. 4.1.1972, he was treated as member of the family of Balbir Singh and land held by the plaintiff was clubbed with the landholding of Balbir Singh. Being aggrieved of order dt. 5.8.1980 of the Prescribed Authority, Balbir Singh preferred appeal before the Collector. Before the Collector, Balbir Singh contended that Jaswinder Singh was given in adoption to one Mukhtiar Singh vide adoption-deed dt. 5.11.1973, but the said adoption-deed was wrongly ignored by the Prescribed Authority, he contended that the Prescribed Authority had no authority to declare adoption deed dt. 5.11.1973 to be a sham documents and to declare the land surplus in his hands by clubbing the land of his son who had already been given in adoption before the appointed day. Vide order dated 2.12.1980, the Collector dismissed the appeal. Balbir Singh preferred revision before the Commissioner, Hissar Division & vide order dt. 30.7.1982, his revision was dismissed. Thereafter Balbir Singh filed petition under Section 18(6) of the Act before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 5.3.1985, the Financial Commissioner did not find it to be a fit case for exercise of suo-motu powers under Section 18(6) of the Act to interfere with order dated 30.7.1982 and accordingly dismissed the petition. Balbir Singh having lost the battle before the Authorities under the Act, filed Civil Suit No. 154 of 1981 challenging orders passed by the Authorities. In the said suit, he not only challenged the orders of the Authorities under the Act, but also sought declaration that Jaswinder Singh, was given in adoption to one Mukhtiar Singh vide adoption deed dated 5.11.1973 and the decision of the Prescribed Authority to the contrary is null and void. In the suit, he impleaded the State of Haryana and also Mukhtiar Singh and Jaswinder Singh as party-defendants. Both the defendants, namely, Mukhtiar Singh and Jaswinder Singh filed written statement admitting the claim of Balbir Singh. The State of Haryana, however, contested the suit and the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dabwali vide detailed judgment and decree dated 22.2.1986 dismissed the suit. In appeal, filed by Balbir Singh, against the said judgment, the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.7.1987 affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is thereafter that the suit out of which present appeal has arisen, was filed by Jaswinder Singh challenging the orders of the Authorities under the Act and also judgment and decree dated 22.2.1986 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Dabwali and judgment and decree dated 20.7.1987 passed in appeal by the first Appellate Court. In the suit, plaintiff also challenged order dated 26.2.1981 vide which the land which had been declared surplus, has been allotted to defendants 3 to 6.
3. Upon contest, the State as also defendants No.3 to 6 contested the suit and in their written statement, submitted that the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act are legal and valid. They contended that because of bar created under Section 26 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendants further submitted that order dated 26.2.1981 vide which land was allotted to defendants No.3 to 6 is legal and valid.
4. Trial Court, on appreciation of evid
