IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on :04.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on 30.01.2026 CHATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS &

OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Advocate and Mr. Chand Ram Narwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 17.

****

P ARMOD GOYAL , J.

The plaintiffs-appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Jind, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1991 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Narwana by which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs-appellants had been decreed was set aside.

2. The plaintiffs in their suit for declaration claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land. It was asserted that the father of plaintiff-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was a big landowner and vide order dated 21.08.1956, some of his land was declared surplus under the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PEPSU Act’ / ‘1955 Act’) . Again, vide order dated 09.06.1961, 14 standard acres was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1953 Act’). Appeals/revisions were preferred by father of the plaintiffs-appellant Nos. 1 and 2, however, the orders declaring the land surplus were affirmed. Thereafter, Dhan Singh, father of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, suffered a decree dated 27.04.1971 in favour of his sons and mutation Ex. P.2 was entered in favour of the sons of Dhan Singh, i.e., the plaintiffs. Notices dated 25.05.1970 (Ex. D.9) and 01.05.1973 (Ex. D.10) were served upon the landowner for handing over possession. Vide the said notices, it was further informed that the land stood allotted and the Tehsildar was directed to take possession and hand over the same to the allottees. The plaintiffs-appellants sought a declaration that the orders dated 21.08.1956 and 09.06.1961, by virtue of which the land had been declared surplus, as well as the orders dated 13.05.1970 and 29.05.1971, vide which the land was allotted to tenants, were illegal, void, without jurisdiction, and not binding upon the plaintiffs-appellants. The plaintiffs- appellants claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit property and further sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their rights.

3. The suit was contested on the ground that the land stood vested in the State by virtue of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short ‘1972 Act’) with effect from the appointed date, i.e., 24.01.1971, and that the land had already been utilized; therefore, the plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest therein.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the orders dated 21-8-1956 and 9-6-1961 vide which the suit land was declared surplus are null and void ? OPP.

2. Whether the orders dated 13-5-70 and 31-5-1973 passed by prescribed authority making allotment of suit land to tenants are also null and void ? OPP.

3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, then whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against defendant as prayed for ? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is undervalued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPP.

5. Whether plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the suit ?

OPD.

6. Whether civil court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit ? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 of CPC ? OPD.

9. Relief.”

5. Three questions upon which the decision of the present case depends are:-

1. Whether possession of the suit property was delivered to defendant Nos.