IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103+210(05)

Decided on :08.05.2026 L PA-1952-2014 (O&M)

JAGTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents C M-3195-LPA-2026 and C M-879-LPA-2025 in L PA-1953-2014 (O&M)

TRILOK SINGH AND ANR ...Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents C M-3189-LPA-2026 and C M-874-LPA-2025 in L PA-1954-2014 ( O&M)

CHANNO DEVI ….. Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents C M-3190-LPA-2026 and C M-942-LPA-2025 in L PA-1957-2014 (O&M)

JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents C M-3191-LPA-2026 and C M-941-LPA-2025 in L PA-1958-2014 (O&M)

TRILOK SINGH AND OTHERS ...Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA PRESENT: Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 7 to 10, 13 and 14.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. As all the appeals involves the same question of law, hence, are being disposed of by common order. The facts have been taken from LPA-

1952-2014.

CM-3193-LPA-2026 CM-3195-LPA-2026 C M-3189-LPA-2026 C M-3190-LPA-2026 CM-3191-LPA-2026

2. Present applications have been filed for recalling the order dated 23.04.2026, by which, the present letters patent appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the present applications, which are duly supported by an affidavit(s), the same are allowed.

4. Consequently, the order dated 23.04.2026 is recalled and the Letters Patent Appeals are restored to its original number and status and the main Letters Patent Appeals are taken up for hearing today itself.

CM-909-LPA-2025 CM-879-LPA-2025 CM-874-LPA-2025 CM-942-LPA-2025 C M-941-LPA-2025

5. The prayer in the present applications is for impleading the legal representatives of respective respondents, who unfortunately died during the pendency of the present appeals, respectively, being necessary and effective party and to place on record the amended memo of parties.

6. Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the present applications, the same are allowed. Consequently, the legal representatives of respective respondents, whose particulars are mentioned in paragraph No 3 of each application are impleaded as respondents in the present appeals, respectively, and the amended memo of the parties are also taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA-1952-2014 and connected cases

7. In the present appeals, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the old tenants claiming that they had become owners of the land in question immediately upon the declaration of the land as surplus had been rejected. The learned Single Judge held that until the surplus land is utilized and allotted to the tenant, the original owner continues to be treated as the owner and is entitled to recover batai (rent) from the tenants.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the moment the land is declared surplus, a deeming fiction comes into operation whereby the tenant is to be treated as having been allotted the said land in question and therefore, the question of paying batai (rent) after declaration of the land as surplus does not arise. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2014, has erred in holding the appellants liable to pay batai (rent) until the surplus land is allotted to them.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that firstly, the declaration of the land as surplus is itself under challenge in another proceedings which are still pending consideration and secondly that until the land, though declared surplus, is actually allotted to the ten