SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Yash Paul and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 2878-A of 1996, COCP No. 2166 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jayoti Parshad Sharma
For the Respondents: Pankaj Mulwani, P.S. Bajwa

A final civil court decree regarding title and possession of surplus land is binding on all parties and successors. Land is considered utilized upon allotment and delivery of possession, and transfers made during pending litigation are subject to the final judicial determination.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Surplus land - Allotment of land - Validity of certificate of allotment - Where land is declared surplus and allotted to a tenant, and such allotment and possession are affirmed by a competent civil court, the administrative authorities are bound by such findings. (Paras 25-27)

(B) Lis Pendens - Transfer of property during pendency of litigation - Transfer of property during the pendency of a suit does not annul the conveyance but makes it subservient to the rights determined by the court - The decision of a court is binding not only on the litigating parties but also on those who derive title pendente lite. (Paras 32-32.1)

Facts of the case:
Land was declared surplus under land tenure legislation and subsequently allotted to a tenant. Possession was delivered to the tenant. Later, the original owner's successor transferred the land to third parties. The tenant filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession, which was decreed in his favor and affirmed by the highest courts. The administrative authorities subsequently issued an allotment certificate in favor of the tenant. The third-party purchasers challenged this issuance, claiming the land was not utilized and that they were bona fide purchasers.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the civil court had already conclusively determined that the land was allotted to the tenant and that he remained in possession until being forcibly dispossessed. This finding was affirmed by the highest judicial forums. Consequently, the land was deemed utilized, and the administrative authorities acted correctly in issuing the allotment certificate. The contempt petition was dismissed as the status quo order did not prohibit alienation, and the doctrine of lis pendens rendered the subsequent transfer subservient to the court's final decree.

Issues: The main issues were whether the land was effectively utilized by the tenant, whether the allotment certificate was validly issued, and whether the transfer of property during the pendency of litigation was binding.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a civil court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated upon the rights of the parties regarding title and possession, and that judgment has attained finality, it is binding on all parties and successors. Furthermore, land is considered utilized once it is allotted and possession is delivered to the beneficiary. Transfers made during the pendency of litigation are subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of land allotment and prior judicial determinations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. re-evaluation of evidence confirming valid allotment and possession rights. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. final adjudication on surplus land utilization and dismissal of writ petition. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. application of the doctrine of lis pendens to property transfers during litigation. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CWP-2878-A-1996 and COCP-2166-2024 and for the purpose of passing order, the facts are being taken from CWP-2878-A-1996.

CWP-2878-A-1996.

2. Petition herein is, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 26.10.1994 (Annexure P-13) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana and to further quash certificate of allotment (Form US-3) dated 09.08.1995 (Annexure P-14) issued by learned Allotment Authority, Karnal in favour of Sh. Sadhu Ram (predecessor in interest of respondents No.4 to 10 herein).

2.1 Another prayer has been made to uphold and maintain the order dated 01.03.1988 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Collector (Agrarian), Karnal and order dated 31.01.1989 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala.

3. Briefly, Sh. Takan Dass S/o Sh. Milkhi Ram (father of proforma respondent No.11-Radha Krishan) was a big land owner of village Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal. It appears that he transferred some of his land, (including land in question measuring 05 bighas - 11 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.1245, 1513 and 1513/1) situated at Village Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal in favour of his son Radha Krishan (proforma respondent No.11) vide a Civil Court decree dated 27.04.1959.

4. It transpires that the then learned Collector (Agrarian), Karnal, vide order dated 05.11.1962 declared 71 standard acres and 33/4 units of land of Sh. Takan Dass as “surplus area” under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short the “1953 Act”) by ignoring the transfer made vide Civil Court decree dated 27.04.1959..

5. Sh. Takan Dass is stated to have expired on 15.09.1967, whereupon, a mutation No.2342 as regards succession of his estate was sanctioned in favour of his sons, including proforma respondent No.11 – Radha Krishan.

6. It further transpires that out of the surplus land of Sh. Takan Dass, land to the extent of 24 bighas - 05 biswas comprised in pre- consolidation Khasra Nos.1560min(0-19), 1561(4-7), 1562(1-17), 1563(0- 17), 1564(1-18), 1565(1-19), 1582(1-15), 1589(4-7), 1590(2-6) and 1591(4- 0), came to be allotted in favour of Sh. Sadhu Ram s/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal (father of respondents No.4 to 9 and husband of respondent No.10 herein) vide order dated 25.09.1962 passed by learned Collector (Agrarian), Karnal, and its possession was delivered to Sh. Sadhu Ram on 20.05.1963.

6.1 Later on, another area measuring 05 bighas - 11 biswas comprised in Khasra No.1245 min(west), 1513min and 1513/1 also came to be allotted to above-referred Sh. Sadhu Ram, out of the surplus land of Sh. Takan Dass vide order dated 20.01.1965 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Collector (Agrarian), Karnal.

6.2 It appears that possession of land measuring 05 bighas - 11 biswas, came to be handed over to Sh. Sadhu Ram (allottee) vide possession proceedings dated 27.02.1965 (Annexure P-3), the relevant extract of the same reads as under:-

“Possession has been given/got delivered by demarcation at site to the tenant who is to get the possession. The tenant, who is to get the possession, is satisfied with this action. One copy of Form K-6 has been handed over to the tenant who is to take possession and one copy of Form K-6 has been handed over to the Patwari Halqa for record. Proclamation to this effect has been got made in the village through Sadhu, village Watc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top