JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This common judgment shall dispose of four Regular Second Appeals and three Civil Revisions, as all the matters arise out of a common factual background and involve overlapping questions of law and fact.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court. Trial Court record of all the cases was requisitioned and has been perused.

3. It emerges on perusal of the record that Moman son of Sadasukh was a big landowner in village Gindran, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Apart from wife Smt. Bhuri, he had four sons namely, Nathu Ram, Mani Ram, Hari Singh and Shiv Prakash.

4.1 This entire lis originates from proceedings initiated under the surplus area law against Moman. The Collector (Surplus Area), Sirsa, vide order dated 30.05.1961 (reviewed on 13.06.1962), declared Moman to be a big landowner. Out of his holding, 106.65 ordinary acres were declared as tenants’ permissible area and 179.95 ordinary acres were declared surplus in village Gindran. Thereafter, by order dated 13.06.1962 passed in Case No.439 titled ‘State v. Moman’, the competent authority treated land, including the portion claimed by the plaintiffs, as surplus/tenants’ permissible area.

4.2 Several years later, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, acting as the Allotment Authority, passed orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981 allotting parts of the said land to different tenants. Mutations Nos.1160, 1162 and 1161 were sanctioned on 15.10.1980 in favour of the allottees.

Facts leading to RSA No.1020 of 1997 & RSA No.3561 of 1997 :

5.1 Plaint Averments : Smt. Bhuri and one of the sons Shiv Prakash instituted Civil Suit No.353 of 1987 [later registered as CS N: 418 of 1990/1987] claiming that the suit property detailed in headnote of the plaint was owned & possessed by them to the extent of 2/5 share (1/5 share each), by virtue of Mutation No.468 dated 25.04.1954, sanctioned on 28.05.1954 (Ex.P3). According to the plaintiffs, a partition by metes and bounds had already been effected in the year 1954 amongst the co-sharers, including the original landowner Moman Ram and his sons Nathu Ram , Mani Ram, and Hari Singh. Thereafter, during consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs were allotted specific killa numbers in lieu of the earlier khasra numbers, and they claimed exclusive ownership and possession over the land so allotted. It was pleaded that since the plaintiffs’ share had already been separated and specific parcels had been allotted to them, nothing remained joint with the landowner Moman. Consequently, any declaration of surplus area in the case of the landowner could not legally include the land exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, particularly in the absence of notice and opportunity of hearing as mandated under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956.

5.2 Plaintiffs challenged the order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P19) passed by defendant No.2, namely the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, acting as Collector Surplus Area/Allotment Authority in Case No.439 titled ‘State v. Moman’, by virtue of which, the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land was declared surplus. They alleged that this order dated 13.06.1962 wrongly reflected transfer of 418 bighas 1 biswa of land by the landowner, which erroneously included the land belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said order was passed without issuance of any notice to them and in violation of mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, was null, illegal, void, and not binding upon their rights.

5.3 The plaintiffs also assailed the subsequent orders of allotment dated 25.08.1980 (Ex.P27) and 26.02.1981 passed by defendant No.2, wherebyportions of the suit land were allotted to third parties without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. These allotment orders, along with the consequential mutations sanctioned on their basis, were also alleged to