IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on 12.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on 30.01.2026 STATE OF HARYANA ... APPELLANT VERSUS CHANDER BHAN ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The State of Haryana, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bahadurgarh, and the judgment and decree dated 15.09.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.1992, the suit filed by the plaintiff Chander Bhan for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed, and the first appeal preferred by the appellant–State was dismissed.

2. The gist of the facts, on the basis of which the plaintiff claimed declaration and permanent injunction, is that the plaintiff and one Daya Kaur, widow of Sukh Lal, were owners in possession of agricultural land fully described in the plaint. The Collector, Jhajjar, vide order dated 23.10.1959, had declared 4 standard acres and 12½ units of land belonging to the plaintiff and Daya Kaur as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Thereafter, consolidation took place in the village in the year 1959; however, the area allotted to the plaintiff and Daya Kaur was substantially reduced after consolidation, and the land was not utilized up to the consolidation operations. The land comprised in Rectangle and Killa Nos. 32/14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19/1, 23, 24, 25; 13/21, 22, 23; 25/1, 2; and 54/20, 21, measuring in total 110 kanals and 18 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Chhudani, was allotted to the plaintiff and Daya Kaur.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was never given any opportunity to select the permissible area after consolidation, which was mandatory under the law. It was asserted that Mutation No. 2025 dated 12.07.1978 was recorded after the consolidation proceedings in favour of the defendant–State, which is totally illegal, void, and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the said Daya Kaur. The plaintiff also claimed to have inherited the share of Daya Kaur upon her death. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed his right as owner in possession over the suit land and sought a declaration that the order dated 23.10.1959 passed by the Collector, Jhajjar, and Mutation No. 2025 dated 12.07.1978 are illegal, void, without jurisdiction, and not binding on his rights. 4. The factum of ownership, declaration of surplus land, and consolidation were not denied by the defendant–State. It was, however, asserted that after consolidation, the plaintiff was given full opportunity to select the permissible area. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and Daya Kaur had duly handed over the land declared surplus on 10.10.1968, for which Mutation No. 2025 was sanctioned. That the order of the Collector dated 23.10.1959 and Mutation No. 2025 are legal and binding upon the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that after consolidation, the land (mentioned in para 4 of the plaint) was allotted to the plaintiff and that he had obtained possession thereof, whereas the land in dispute had vested in the Haryana Government in accordance with law. It was also asserted that subsequently the said land was allotted to allottees vide order dated 24.11.1977. The Civil Writ Petition No. 3228 of 1978 as well as SLP No. 1611 of 1989 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were dismissed vide orders dated 09.11.1978 and 11.01.1982, respectively.

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

“1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether mutation no. 2025 dated 12.7.1978 is illegal, void honest and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the right of the plaintiff ? OPP.

3. Whether the sui