IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :23.03.2026 Pronounced on :15.05.2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SHYAME ...RESPONDENT 223(2) RSA-2343-2000 (O&M) NAWABUDDIN AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS KUMEDDIN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Abhinav Mahant, Asst. A.G., Haryana for appellant in RSA No.1448 of 2000.

Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate for appellant in RSA No.2343 of 2000.

Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents in both appeals.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Present regular second appeals have been preferred by appellants-defendants being aggrieved by judgment dated 18.04.1995 passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nuh, whereby suit for declaration with permanent injunction preferred by respondent-plaintiff was decreed and by judgment and decree dated 01.10.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Gurguram, whereby first appeal preferred by appellants-defendants was dismissed. Since the dispute involved in both the appeals is identical, they are being decided by way of this common judgment. For the sake of reference, the facts, albeit briefly, are being taken from RSA No. 1448 of

2000 titled “State of Haryana and Others Vs. Shyame.”

2. Appellants have challenged findings recorded by learned Courts below that order dated 21.08.1969 passed by Surplus-cum-Agrarian Collector declaring land as surplus in the hands of landowner was void ab initio as same was against the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1953 Act’) and that challenge to order dated 21.08.1969 by way of suit filed on 28.10.1986 is maintainable and not barred by limitation.

3. It is argued that learned Courts below have erred in giving above-noted findings without considering evidence available on record. Reference has been made to affidavit/application made by respondent- plaintiff-landowner before the Collector on 21.08.1969 choosing his permissible area and it is argued that once the respondent-plaintiff- landowner himself had chosen his permissible area, he is estopped from denying the same and choice made by him before the Collector before passing of order dated 21.08.1969 is binding and therefore the conclusion drawn by the learned Courts below is erroneous and perverse.

4. Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff on the other hand has argued that on appointed date i.e. 15.04.1953, respondent-plaintiff was not big land owner in view of definition of land under Section 8 of 1953 Act. It is asserted that land under the tenants, under mortgage or land which is Banjar Kadim, Banjar Jadi and Gair Mumkin cannot be taken into consideration and has to be excluded while determining surplus land. Whereas Surplus-cum-Agrarian Collector while passing order dated 21.08.1969 had erred by including such land and on the basis of inclusion of such land, respondent-plaintiff-land owner was declared big landowner. Wrong inclusion of areas against the mandate of 1953 Act makes the order dated 21.08.1969 void ab initio and null as same was against the specific provisions of 1953 Act.

5. In present case, both the Courts below have duly noted evidence led by respondent-plaintiff in the shape of Ex.P1 to P4, revenue records i.e. is Goshwara and Jamabandi pertaining to the land owned by respondent- plaintiff. It is the case of respondent-plaintiff that he owned land in three villages namely Sanghel, Jajuka and Partap Nagar. At village Sanghel, respondent-plaintiff had 92 bighas 03 biswas in his name at village Jajuka, he had 27 bighas and 16-1/2 biswas of land and at village Pratap Nagar, he had 09 bighas of land in his name. The Surplus-cum-Agrarian Collector vide order dated 21.08.1969 had taken the entire land in consideration and had concluded that respondent-plaintiff was in possession of 39 standard acres 12-1/2 units of land and had accordingly allowed 25 standard acres as permissible area and had declared 14 standard acres 12-1/2 units of land