IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bikar Singh and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and Others . . . . Respondents II. RSA-1911-1996 Sukhdev Singh and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 29.10.2025 Pronounced on: 04.11.2025 ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.9 and 10.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two Regular Second Appeals are directed against the judg-

ments and decrees dated 23.02.1996 passed by the first Appellate Court of learned Addi1onal District Judge, Sirsa, whereby appeal of the defendants N: 1 to 3 was allowed, and the suits for declara1on filed by plain1ffs (appellants herein in both the appeals) were dismissed, reversing the decrees dated 01.06.1992 passed by trial Court of Ld. Addi1onal Senior Sub Judge, Dabwali, in favour of the plain1ffs – appellants herein.

2. Facts of both the cases are similar. Date of judgments passed by Trial Court and Appellate Court are same. Respec1ve Presiding Officers in both courts are same. For convenience, Factual matrix is noted from RSA N: 1910-1996 1tled ‘Bikkar Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others.’ arising out of Civil Suit N: 316 of 1988. Other RSA N: 1911-1996 1tled ‘Sukhdev Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others’ has arisen out of Civil Suit N: 312 of 1988.

3. For clarity, the par1es shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The photocopy of the Trial Court record was called and has been duly perused.

4.1 The plain1ffs filed a suit for declara1on and permanent injunc1on asser1ng that the father of defendants No. 4 to 7 namely, Hakam Singh, had been cul1va1ng the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint (old khasra numbers in village Ganga) since 1857 as an occupancy tenant and that on the enforcement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves(cid:24)ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, said Hakam Singh became owner of the land. During consolida1on, new khasra numbers were alloFed, and Hakam Singh’s ownership con1nued in respect of 71 kanal 8 marla.

4.2 It is alleged that in January 1957, Nand Singh (father of the present plain(cid:24)ffs - appellants) dispossessed Hakam Singh and took cul1va1ng possession. Since then, he and, aHer his death, the plain1ffs have con1nuously, peacefully, and openly possessed the land as owners, hos1le to the 1tle of Hakam Singh and others. The plain1ffs therefore claimed ownership by adverse possession.

4.3 Plain1ffs further pleaded that defendants Balbir Kaur and Kishan Kaur wrongly declared the land as their surplus holding under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority, Dabwali, by order dated 30.03.1988, declared the suit land as surplus in their hands without no1ce to the plain1ffs, who were in possession. The plain1ffs asserted that the order is illegal, void, and without jurisdic1on, and not binding upon them.

4.4 Subsequently, the Allotment Authority, Dabwali, vide order dated 20.05.1988, alloFed the land to defendants No. 9 to 11. The plain1ffs contended the said allotment to be is void, as defendants 9 to 11 were not residents of village Ganga, were not landless agricultural workers, and were otherwise ineligible under the Haryana U1lisa1on of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976. They also alleged that that defendants No. 1 to 3 – State Authori1es were threatening dispossession on the strength of those void orders.

4.5 Alterna1vely, the plain1ffs pleaded that if their ownership by adverse possession is not accepted, they should be treated as tenants in possession since before 1957, thereby en1tled to allotment of the land under the U1lisa1on Scheme. Having failed to secure acknowledgment of their rights, they prayed for declara1on of ownership and possession by seKng aside of the orders dated 30.03.1988 and 20.05.1988 to the extent of the suit land, and