State cannot deny ownership rights due to administrative lapses; civil court jurisdiction is valid when civil rights are threatened.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This judgment shall dispose of four appeals as titled above, as all of them involve common facts.

2. These four appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suits filed by the plaintiffs of these cases for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, regarding the suit property involved in each of the case, were decreed by the trial Court; and the appeals filed by the State were dismissed by the First Appellate Court, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.

3. Facts are being noticed from the RSA - 4193 of 1999 (State of Haryana v. Jatiram).

4. The suit land was declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiff in 1963 under Section 20(B) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. The plaintiff was put in possession as tenant and, after investing labour and money, he made the land cultivable. In 1973, the land was auctioned at the reserved price of ₹40 per acre. The plaintiff deposited the entire sale consideration on 01.03.1973 and since then remained in possession without payment of batai. However, the revenue record continued to describe the plaintiff as a tenant, which the defendants sought to exploit by proposing a re-auction. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession.

5. The stand of the State was that the plaintiff continued only as a lessee, whose lease period had expired, and that the application for transfer was still pending since the Settlement Officer never confirmed the sale. It was also urged that the Tehsildar (Sales) lacked competence to transfer the land, and further that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred.

6. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court recorded:

 Till 1973, the plaintiff remained a tenant but thereafter deposited the entire sale price in terms of the order of the Tehsildar (Sales) dated

26.02.1973.

 The file was sent for confirmation to the Settlement Officer, who on

26.03.1974 raised only two objections – (i) khasra girdawari copy not certified, and (ii) lease file not attached. These were technical in nature and could have been cured easily.

 Despite lapse of nearly two decades, the officials failed to remove these defects, which was negligence on their part, not the plaintiff’s.

 Significantly, after deposit of sale price, the plaintiff ceased paying batai and the State never raised any objection or initiated recovery proceedings. This conduct showed that even the defendants treated him as owner in possession.

7. The Court held that once the plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements and deposited the sale price, proprietary rights vested in him. Failure of officials to remove minor defects could not defeat such substantive rights. The State, instead of correcting the lapse, attempted to deny the plaintiff’s rights by taking hyper-technical pleas. Accordingly, the trial Court held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land, declared the contrary revenue entries illegal, restrained the State from interference, and directed issuance of the sale certificate.

8. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.1998, affirmed the trial court findings, holding that the plaintiff had acquired ownership rights and the objections of the Settlement Officer were inconsequential.

9. In regular second appeal before this court, the learned AAG for the State argued that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred. However, he was unable to dispute the admitted facts:

 Plaintiff was put in possession as tenant in 1963.

 In 1973, land was sold to him and he deposited the entire consideration.

 No steps were taken by the State for nearl