IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 Kalawati (since deceased) through LR and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Rana, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 11.

Mr. Vinod Pundir, Advocate for Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for respondents No.12 and 13.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 19.05.2010 passed in CWP-10155-2005 by the learned Single Judge upholding the order passed by the revenue authorities declaring the land, which is being claimed by the appellant as being under his ownership, as a surplus land, which land already stands vested with the State of Haryana and has already been utilized for the purpose of allotment and same stands allotted to the private respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land in question has wrongly been declared as a surplus, as the appellant was a bonafide purchaser of said land and therefore, the said bonafide purchase of land in question should have been taken into consideration so as to hold that the land purchased by the appellant measuring 82 Kanal 03 Marla on 09.02.1976 vide Annexure P-8, was under her ownership for all intents and purposes and declaring 62 Kanal as surplus is bad.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the total land measuring 82 Kanal 03 Marla, 62 Kanal, purchased by the appellant out of the total 188 Kanal 11 Marlas belonging to the original owner namely Dawarki Devi, which land was declared surplus, the said land has already been utilized and allotted in favour of the private respondent.

4. The learned State counsel further submits that allotment of land in favour of the private respondents, which land was being claimed by the appellant under her ownership, the same has already attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the land so allotted in favour of the private respondents, which was set for utilization and allotment so done, was valid.

5. The learned counsel submits that once, the allotment of land in favour of the private respondents has already been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which decision was given after considering all the arguments raised at the hands of the appellant that she was the rightful owner, the same cannot be allowed to be re-opened in the present appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. It may be noticed that the land measuring 82 Kanal 03 Marla was purchased by the appellant on 09.02.1976 from a big land owner namely Dawarki Devi. Keeping in view the provisions of law, the land measuring 188 Kanal 11 Marla was declared surplus at the hands of Dawarki Devi and out of the said surplus land of 188 Kanal 11 Marla, the land measuring 62 Kanal was the land which was purchased by the appellant on 09.02.1976. Hence, for all intents and purposes once the decision was to be taken qua the surplus land as on 24.01.1971, on which date concededly the land which is being claimed in the ownership of appellant, was under the ownership of Dawarki Devi, i.e. the big land owner, the surplus land, even if sold subsequently to the appointed date of declaring the same as surplus, will vest with the State of Haryana as per Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

8. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute that after vesting of the land with State of Haryana, the State has already utilized the said surplus land and has allotted the same to the private respondent, which chall