JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

1. The present order would dispose of four Regular Second Appeals and one contempt petition. RSA Nos.1369, 1370 and 1371 of 1989 arise from a common judgment of the trial Court dated 06.02.1986, vide which three civil suits i.e. Civil Suit No.664 of 1981, Civil Suit No.388 of 1983 and Civil Suit No.870 of 1985 were decreed. It would be further relevant to note that evidence was recorded only in Civil Suit No.664 of 1981 and the same was to be read as evidence in all the three suits. Against said common judgment dated 06.12.1986, six civil appeals filed by various private defendants as well as by the State were decided vide common judgment dated 27.03.1989. In the present three Regular Second Appeals, it is the said common judgment dated 27.03.1989 passed by the First Appellate Court which is under challenge, as it is the First Appellate Court which had set aside the common judgment dated 06.02.1986 of the trial Court, to the extent that the appeals of the private defendants who had not compromised with the plaintiffs, was accepted and the suits of the plaintiffs/present appellants had been dismissed to the said extent. The plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.664 of 1981 as well as Civil Suit No.870 of 1985 are five in number and are the same and are the son, widow and daughters of Sadhu Ram, the original big landowner. In Civil Suit No.388 of 1983, the plaintiff is Balbir Singh, son of Sadhu Ram, the original big landowner.

2. In RSA No.947 of 1989, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 22.08.1988 vide which the First Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1986 passed by the trial Court and had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent the same had not been compromised with the defendants. Civil Suit No.359 of 1982 out of which the said Regular Second Appeal arises had been filed by Khazani Devi, widow of Sadhu Ram (original big landowner) and after her death, had been pursued by her LRs.

3. In all the appeals and all the suits filed by the successors-in- interest of Sadhu Ram, original landowner, the prayer for declaration with possession has been made and challenge is made to the grant of proprietary rights to the various set of defendants, who were initially allotted the land on 09.12.1963 and were also subsequently given proprietary rights after the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act, 1972). The issues which arise for consideration in all the said cases are common and thus, all the said cases are being decided by the present common judgment.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that Sadhu Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, was a big landowner having 79 standard acres 9 units of agricultural land. It is submitted that the Collector, Karnal in the proceedings initiated under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Security Act, 1953) vide order dated 25.05.1960 declared land measuring 49 standard acres and 9 units as surplus and thereafter on an appeal preferred by said Sadhu Ram before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, vide order dated 07.09.1961, the Commissioner partly allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter. It is further fairly submitted that vide order dated 28.09.1962, the Collector declared same area as surplus and on 09.12.1963, allotments, some of which were exhibited as Exhibits P-18 to P-20, were made in favour of the defendants, who were ejected tenants for their re-settlement.

5. It is further argued that a writ petition was filed by Sadhu Ram, which was allowed on 21.04.1965 and he was given an opportunity to select his permissible area and he was also