IMPORTANT POINT
Personal notice is essential before allotment of surplus land under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, ensuring the right to a fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Pankaj Jain, J.: Plaintiff is in appeal.

2. One Chuni son of Sarwan was declared as big landlord. On 4th of April, 1983 suit land was declared surplus in his hands under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Suit land was allotted to one Nand Ram/defendant No.3 as ‘C’ category tenant vide order dated 11th of April, 1984. The present suit was instituted assailing the said order along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed that he has been in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant since 1946-47. He being tenant in possession was required to be heard before allotment of the suit land. His superior right for getting the suit land allotted in his favour stands defeated by non-issuance of notice and thus the order of allotment was bad. Private parties were proceeded ex parte. Only State contested the suit. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff himself was owner of 71 Kanal 2 Marlas of agricultural land. He collusively transferred the same in favour of his sons vide Civil Court Decree dated 7th of November, 1987. Thus, he was not entitled for allotment of the suit land in his favour. It was claimed that before allotment munadi was effect in the village which was duly recorded vide Rapat Roznamcha No.302 dated 5th of April, 1984. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

3. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has placed heavy reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in State of Haryana and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others, 1986 AIR (P&H) 407 to submit that where no opportunity of hearing was given to land owner as envisaged under Section 6 before declaring the land surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, the order is in nullity and civil suit to challenge the validity of such order is maintainable. Further relies upon law laid in Dharam Singh vs. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1980 PLJ 93, Makhan Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 512, Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1989(1) R.R.R. 289, Jagroop Singh Gill and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1995 PLJ 166, Bahadur Ram and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1969 PLJ 372 and Kesho Dass and another vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1968 PLJ 366 to submit that where an opportunity of hearing is not given to the tenant being interested party, order is in nullity and cannot be sustained.

4. Per contra, State Counsel submits that the plaintiff has not challenged the order declaring the land surplus. He has challenged the order dated 11th of April, 1984 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa allotting the land to defendant No.3. The said order is appealable as provided under the Act. Sufficient notice was given by way of munadi effected in the village and Rapat Roznamcha dated 5th of April, 1984 at Serial No.302 stands proved. He further submits that the plaintiff was otherwise also not eligible being owner of 71 Kanal 2 Marlas of agricultural land himself, the present suit was filed only to prolong the illegal possession over the suit land.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case with their able assistance.

6. There is no dispute w.r.t. declaration of the suit land as surplus in the hands of Chuni son of Sarwan. This is a case wherein the land was declared surplus under Section 9 of the 1956 Act and not Section 10. Land was declared surplus on 4th of October, 1983 and was allotted to defendant Nand Ram vide order dated 11th of April, 1984. The precise allegation of the plaintiff was that he was not served with the notice prior to the passing of the said order, is to be considered. Defendant/State claims that once munadi was effected it can’t be said that the plaintiff was not put to notice. Thus, the issue for consideration gets narrower. In view of counter stands taken by the parties th