The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, to settle, decide, or deal with any matter required to be settled, decided, or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Collector, or the Prescribed Authority under the Act.

A.S.Garg, J.

1. This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 951 of 1997 and 3129 of 1997 arising out of the common judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court. This is a Regular Second Appeal, which refers to the question of the effectiveness of a sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff with respect to an agricultural land of a big landowner and the repercussion there of? Kanwar Bishan Sarup owned agricultural land in village Bahalgarh, Tehsil and District Sonepat, Haryana. He was declared a big land owner after full scrutiny and consideration of his permissible area of the agricultural land in his possession by the Collector vide order dated 30.6.1960. This order was remitted to the Collector for a review. A reminder was also issued by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and ultimately the order dated 30.6.1960 was confirmed vide order dated 19.8.1969.

2. However, the agricultural land measuring 63 kanals 2 marlas belonging to said Kanwar Bishan Sarup was purchased by the respondent-plaintiffs Asha Chaudhary alias Asha Kumari and Radhika Chaudhary vide sale deed dated 23/27.4.1966. They partitioned the property between themselves vide mutation No. 668 dated 10.4.1984 whereby land measuring 24 kanals comprised in Khewat No. 56 Khatauni No. 100, 101 and 102, Rectangle No. 23 Killa Nos. 22(8-0) and 23(8-0) and Rectangle No. 28 Killa No. 12(8-0) had fallen to the share of Asha Chaudhary respondent-plaintiff. Out of this land the dispute relates to land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Rectangle No. 23 and Killa No. 23. Out of this land appellant-defendant No. 2 entered into possession of land measuring 4 kanals 9 marlas and the predecessor-in-interest of appellant-defendant No. 3 and 4 entered into possession of the remaining land measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas in connivance with the State of Haryana vide Rapat Roznamcha dated 6.7.1977 and 20.6.1977.

3. Since the land of the said landowner was declared as surplus vide order dated 30.6.1960 Ex.P.1 automatically the same vested in the State of Haryana. Aggrieved with this order the respondent-plaintiffs brought two different civil suits challenging the order by virtue of which the land of said landowner was declared surplus and also claimed that the land had illegally been delivered to appellant-defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, the State of Haryana was impleaded as a party. Various grounds were taken up by the respondent-plaintiff that the Banjar Qadeem land of the owner was not excluded while taking into consideration the surplus area; that they were not heard before order of declaration of surplus was announced; that the order of review confirming the land to be surplus was made beyond limitation and that certain area was left with the landowner presuming that it was reserved area of land lord and so on so forth:

4. The appellant-defendants in their written statement pleaded that the respondent-plaintiffs were heard at the time when the matter was reviewed and the applications filed by the respondent-plaintiffs were dismissed for want of evidence and the orders dated 20.7.1982 and 7.3.1984 Ex.D.12 and D.13 were passed by the Collector. It was also pleaded that as the respondents only filed review applications against these orders and did not come in appeal or revision, therefore, the order Ex.D.12 and D.13 have become final and that thereafter the surplus proceedings could not be challenged. It was also asserted that the respondent-plaintiffs were duly heard and the Banjar Qadeem land had also been utilized and was made cultivable, therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide such matters. Various other objections were taken up with the prayer that the suits required to be dismissed. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court and the following issues were set out:-

1. Whether the proceedings conducted by the Surplus Authorities are non est, illegal, incomplete, void, wi