JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 10.12.1996 and 23.11.1998 passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the appellants') stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the appellants sought declaration challenging the order dated 11.12.1990 passed by the prescribed authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Lochab, Tehsil and District Jind was declared as surplus in the hands of their predecessor-in-interest-Baljora. Challenge was also laid to an order dated 30.05.1991, whereby the abovementioned land was ordered by the Prescribed Authority to be included in the surplus pool besides impugning the order dated 06.09.1991 passed by the Collector dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants as well. The appellants also sought permanent injunction praying for restraining respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as respondents No.1 and 2') from utilizing the suit property any further.

3. The primary grouse set up by the appellants was that after submission of declaration form on 12.08.1976 in terms of Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972, (for short the 1972 Act'), their predecessor Baljora died on 17.07.1986 and thereafter the appellants along with proforma defendants succeeded the deceased. It was further pleaded that Baljora was declared as big land owner vide order dated 11.12.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby 113 kanals 12 marlas of land in his hand was declared as surplus followed by aforementioned orders dated 30.05.1991 and 06.09.1991. The stand taken by the appellants was that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to all the legal heirs of deceased Baljora before declaring the suit land as surplus in his hands; whereas upon his death, the appellants along with proforma defendants having succeeded the deceased, the declaration of surplus area was required to be assessed after considering their independent right in the holdings.

4. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit while submitting that deceased Baljora submitted his declaration form on 12.08.1976 and showed that he owned 479 kanals and 10 marlas of land which was beyond his permissible limits. It was also pleaded that after the death of Baljora, notices were served upon his legal heirs on 22.08.1990 and in pursuance thereto, one of his sons-Jagbir Singh appeared and participated in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority at the time of passing of the order dated 11.02.1990 and thus, the declaration of surplus land in the hands of Baljora was made in the presence of his legal heirs and thus the same was valid and legal in all respects.

5. Replication was also filed on behalf of the appellants while reiterating that all the legal heirs of deceased Baljora were not granted opportunity to defend themselves before the Prescribed Authority as notice of proceeding was never served upon them.

6. Upon pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

"1) Whether the orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority (S.D.O(C), Jind declaring the suit land surplus in the hands of deceased Baljora and declaring the same in the surplus pool and the order dated 06.09.1991 passed by the Collector, Jind maintaining the correctness or orders dated 11.12.1990 and 30.05.1991 of the Prescribed Authority are illegal, null and void, not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside, as alleged in the plaintiff? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? OPR

3) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD.

4) Whether the suit has not been filed through a duly authorized person? OPD.

5) Whether the plainti