JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.

1. This order will dispose of two RSAs arising out of the same judgment dated 12.01.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Gurgaon whereby the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants was allowed and objection to the report of Sub-Judge on additional issues was dismissed, as well as one RFA filed against the judgment dated 10.06.1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon.

2. Briefly stated, the predecessor of the appellant, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram (substituted in place of Gram Panchayat Dundahera, Tehsil and District Gurugram), filed a civil suit for declaration and possession, claiming that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the agricultural land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, measuring a total of 110 kanals and 2 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Dundahera, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The suit land was in possession of Defendant No. 3, Prem Dass @ Parveen Chela and Gulab Dass Chela, as dohlidars, who were granted the land by the biswedars of Village Dundahera on the condition that Defendant No. 3, and thereafter his predecessors-in-interest, would perform various religious duties for the biswedars. In consideration of performing these duties, the suit land was granted rent-free to the dohlidars. Being shamlat deh, the suit land vested in the plaintiff/Gram Panchayat by operation of law. In 1958, Gulab Dass, predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 3, submitted Form A to the concerned authorities illegally and without any lawful right, claiming that the suit land was surplus in his possession. Subsequently, in 1960, the Collector Agrarian, acting without jurisdiction, illegally declared the suit land as surplus. The same land was then allotted to Defendant Nos. 4 to 14, who later acquired tenancy rights under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and got sanctioned mutations in their favour, which were also illegal. The plaintiff/Gram Panchayat challenged these proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, contending that the declaration of the land as surplus and its allotment to Defendant Nos. 4 to 14 were illegal, null, and void, as no notice of the surplus proceedings was served on the plaintiff, who was the recorded owner in the revenue records. The suit land, vested in the Gram Panchayat as a local authority, is exempt from the operation of the Land Ceiling Act and, therefore, could not have been declared surplus. Moreover, land given to dohlidars in consideration of performing religious duties is also exempt from the Land Ceiling Act. It is further submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 3 colluded with the authorities and signed Form A without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff/Gram Panchayat, acting as the lawful owner, during the surplus proceedings. Since the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 3 has ceased performing the religious duties for which the land was granted, they have forfeited all rights, title, and interest in the suit land by their own act and conduct, and the dohlidars rights stand extinguished.

3. Defendant No. 3 failed to contest the suit and was consequently proceeded against ex parte. The remaining defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statements, raising several preliminary objections. These included objections regarding locus standi, the suit not having been filed by an authorized person, non-service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. On merits, it was specifically denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land, or that the land was given to the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 3 by the biswedars of Village Dundahera on the condition of performing religious duties. It was also denied that the suit land was shamlat deh and vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of law. It was further pleaded that Gulab Dass, being a large lan