IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagdish & Ors. …Appellants Versus Raj Dulari & Ors. …Respondents II. RSA No. 2552 of 1995 Jagdish & Ors. …Appellants Versus Dharam Paul (now deceased) through LRs. & Ors. …Respondents Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Pronounced on: 21.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate and Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate For appellants in both the appeals.

Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Appellant No.1 in RSA 2552-1995.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate For respondent No.1 in RSA-2551-1995 and Respondent No.3 in RSA-2552-1995.

None for respondent No.2 to 9 in RSA-2551-1995.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Lavish, Advocate For LRs of respondent No.1 in RSA-2552-1995.

Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate For respondent No.2 in RSA-2552-1995.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana.

Service of respondents No. 4,6,12 & 13 in RSA-2552-1995 Dispensed with vide order dated 30.03.2010 passed in Connected case being IOIN-2551-1995 in RSA-2551-1995. Service of respondents No.10,17 and 18 in RSA-2552-1995 Dispensed with vide order dated 13.03.2023.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Introductory Facts : These two Regular Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 05.04.1995 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, affirming the decree dated 31.10.1991 rendered by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dabwali. Since both appeals involve identical questions of law and facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts are being noticed from Civil Suit No.463 of 1987 titled Smt. Raj Dulari v. State of Haryana and others, out of which RSA No.2551 of 1995 has arisen.

3.1 Pleadings of the Plaintiff : The plaintiff Smt. Raj Dulari pleaded that she along with the proforma defendants was in cultivating possession of the suit land as co-sharers. The land was admittedly joint and had never been partitioned. One Sahdev Singh, a co-owner of the suit land, was earlier declared a big landowner and part of his holding was declared surplus vide order dated 29.01.1963 passed by the Collector (Surplus Area), Sirsa. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s case was that the surplus order dated 29.01.1963 was illegal, null and void as it had been passed when Sahdev Singh was a minor, without appointing a guardian or next friend, in violation of Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC. It was further pleaded that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to Sahdev Singh, contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956. Additionally, since Sahdev Singh was only a co-sharer, his alleged surplus area could not have been declared without first separating his share as required under Section 24-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 and Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

3.2 It was further pleaded that Sahdev Singh sold his share in the joint land to Shiv Chandrapal Singh vide registered sale deed dated 13.04.1972. After the death of Shiv Chandrapal Singh in August 1986, the plaintiff and proforma defendants inherited the suit property as his legal heirs.

3.3 The plaintiff assailed the subsequent allotment order dated 03.08.1987, whereby the suit land was allotted to defendants No.3 to 20, on the ground that it was a mere consequence of the void surplus declaration and had been passed without issuing any notice to the owner or his legal heirs. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her ownership and possession.

4.1 Defence Set Up by the State and Allottees : Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of Haryana and surplus/allotment authorities) raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court, limitation, maintainability and valuation. On merits, it was pleaded that the surplus declaration of 1963 was lawful and that upon enforcement of the ceiling l