Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 7298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J
Harpat – Appellant
Versus
Boota Singh – Respondent
RSA-3307-1998

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Verma
For the Respondents: Rahul Rathore, Gaurav Garg

A surplus-area declaration passed without issuing mandatory notice to tenants in actual cultivating possession, as required under the relevant Land Tenure Rules, is void ab initio, does not result in the vesting of land in the State, and is challengeable in a Civil Court.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - Sections 5 and 8 - Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 - Rule 6 - Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Section 12(3) - Surplus land declaration - Requirement of notice to tenants - A surplus area order passed without serving mandatory notice to tenants-in-possession is void ab initio. (Paras 16, 19, 20)

(B) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - A civil suit challenging a surplus area order is maintainable if the impugned order rests on a jurisdictional nullity, such as lack of notice. (Para 23)

(C) Limitation - Recovery of possession based on title - Governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, providing a 12-year limitation period from the date of dispossession. (Para 26)

Facts of the case:
The respondents (plaintiffs), who were tenants in possession since 1950, were declared as owners in a 1987 civil decree. The appellant (allottee) claimed the land based on a 1961 surplus area order issued by the Collector. The surplus area order was challenged by the respondents as void for lack of notice, leading to their subsequent dispossession in 1989.

Findings of Court:
The 1961 surplus area order was void as it violated the statutory mandate of providing notice to the cultivators under Rule 6 of the 1956 Rules. Consequently, the land never vested in the State, and the subsequent allotment to the appellant was illegal.

Issues: Whether a surplus area order passed without notice to the tenant is void; whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit against such an order; and whether the suit for recovery of possession was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed in violation of mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the failure to provide a hearing to affected tenants, results in a jurisdictional nullity that does not vest title in the State, thereby permitting a Civil Court challenge despite general bars on jurisdiction and limitation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of facts, trial history, and previous judicial findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9)

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.4 – the allottee Harpat Singh, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiffs – Boota Singh and the legal representatives of Karam Singh (respondents No: 1 to 3 herein), seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of suit land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Gidder Khera, District Sirsa, was decreed by the trial Court on 24.09.1994 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 23.10.1998.

2. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their positions before the Trial Court. The trial Court record has been requisitioned and examined.

3. Background Facts: Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the surplus-area case of landowner Inder Singh R/o village Ganga was decided by the Collector, Surplus Area, vide order dated 27.09.1961 (Ex.P-9). The suit land measuring 24 kanals, situated in the revenue estate of village Gidder Kheda, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, and fully described in the headnote of the plaint, was included in the surplus pool of Inder Singh. At the relevant time, Boota Singh (plaintiff No.1) and Karam Singh (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.2 and 3) stood recorded as tenants in cultivating possession of the suit land. Subsequently, the suit land along with other parcels was allotted to defendant No.4 Harpat Singh (appellant herein) vide allotment letter dated 29.09.1989 (Ex.P-10), and pursuant thereto, possession was delivered to him vide Rapat Roznamcha No.86 dated 11.11.1989 (Ex.D-1).

4.1 Plaintiffs’ Pleadings : In this background, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in November 1989, asserting that they and their predecessors had been in cultivating possession of the suit land for two generations. According to them, their forefathers were occupancy tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and upon the enactment of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951, they became owners because they never paid rent to the proprietor and only paid a nominal cash amount less than the land revenue. It was pleaded that while declaring the surplus area of Inder Singh in 1961, the Collector, Surplus Area, did not serve any notice upon them, despite their possession as tenants. Therefore, the order dated 27.09.1961 was asserted to be null, void, without jurisdiction, and inoperative qua their rights.

4.2 The plaintiffs further pleaded that they had earlier instituted a separate suit in 1983 seeking a declaration of ownership in respect of the very same land against Inder Singh and others. That suit was decreed on 21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1), whereby they (plaintiffs) were declared owners in possession. Consequently, at the time when the allotment order dated 29.09.1989 (Ex.P-10) was passed, Inder Singh no longer had any subsisting right in the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that on the strength of the aforesaid allotment, their possession was forcibly taken and so, the Rapat Roznamcha dated 11.11.1989 (Ex.D-1) was illegal, void, and without jurisdiction.

4.3 On these averments, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree declaring them to be owners in possession of the suit land, and entitled to restoration of possession.

5. Stand of State Authorities (Defendants No.1 and 2) : The State Authorities contested the suit by raising preliminary objections and submitting that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were merely tenants on batai-tihai and had never acquired ownership. It was asserted that the surplus declaration dated 27.09.1961 was legal and valid, having been passed strictly in accordance with law. It was further contended that plaintiff No.1 was already owner in possession of land measuring 146 kanals 6 marlas in Khewat No.59, and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were owners in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 7298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHDeepak Gupta, JHarpat – AppellantVersusBoota Singh – RespondentRSA-3307-1998

A surplus-area declaration passed without issuing mandatory notice to tenants in actual cultivating possession, as required under the relevant Land Tenure Rules, is void ab initio, does not result in the vesting of land in the State, and is challengeable in a Civil Court.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J
Harpat – Appellant
Versus
Boota Singh – Respondent
RSA-3307-1998