Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ladhu Ram And Others vs Rai Singh Etc on 5 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
I. RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M)
Ladhu (deceased) through his LRs
And Others ..............Appellants
Vs.
Rai Singh & Others . . . . Respondents
*********
II. RSA No.3561 of 1997 (O&M)
The State of Haryana & Another ..............Appellants
Vs.
Bhuri (deceased) through her LRs
And Others . . . . Respondents
*********
III. CR No.1539 of1997
Sawarath Ram Kanungo
---------Pe99oner
Vs.
Vijay Singh & Others ------Respondents
***********
IV. CR No. 1564-1997
Balbir
---------Pe99oner
Vs.
Vijay Singh & Others ------Respondents
*********
V. CR No. 1574-1997
Ladhu & Others
---------Pe99oner
Vs.
1 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
Rai Singh & Others ------Respondents
VI. RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M)
Nathu Ram (deceased) through his LRs
And Others ..............Appellants
Vs.
Amar9 Devi and Others . . . . Respondents
*********
VII. RSA No.1873 of 2006 (O&M)
Nathu Ram (deceased) through his LRs
And Others ..............Appellants
Vs.
Lal Chand and Others . . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 30.01.2026
Pronounced on: 05.03.2026
Pronounced fully/opera9ve part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vijayveer and Abhishek Shukla, Advocates
For the Appellants in RSA-1020-1997;
For Pe++oners in CR-1539-1997 & CR 1574-1997; and
For Respondents in RSA-3561-1997, RSA-1871-2006 &
RSA-1873-2006
Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana
For Appellants in RSA-3561-1997; and
For Respondents No. 14 & 15 in RSA-1020-1997.
Mr. S.S. Salar and Mr. Hiten Chugh, Advocates
For Appellants in RSA-1871-2006 & RSA-1873-2006;
For Respondents No. 1 to 13 in RSA-1020-1997; and
For Respondents in CR-1539-1997, CR-1564-1997 &
CR 1574-1997.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For Proforma Respondents in RSA-1871-2006 &
Page 2 of 24
2 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
RSA-1873-2006.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This common judgment shall dispose of four Regular Second Ap-
peals and three Civil Revisions, as all the ma9ers arise out of a common factual
background and involve overlapping ques+ons of law and fact.
2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the par+es shall be re-
ferred to as per their original status before the trial Court. Trial Court record of
all the cases was requisi+oned and has been perused.
3. It emerges on perusal of the record that Moman son of Sadasukh
was a big landowner in village Gindran, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Apart from
wife Smt. Bhuri, he had four sons namely, Nathu Ram, Mani Ram, Hari Singh and
Shiv Prakash.
4.1 This en+re lis originates from proceedings ini+ated under the sur-
plus area law against Moman. The Collector (Surplus Area), Sirsa, vide order
dated 30.05.1961 (reviewed on 13.06.1962), declared Moman to be a big
landowner. Out of his holding, 106.65 ordinary acres were declared as tenants’
permissible area and 179.95 ordinary acres were declared surplus in village Gin-
dran. ThereaBer, by order dated 13.06.1962 passed in Case No.439 +tled ‘State
v. Moman‘, the competent authority treated land, including the por+on claimed
by the plain+ffs, as surplus/tenants’ permissible area.
4.2 Several years later, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, act-
ing as the Allotment Authority, passed orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981
alloGng parts of the said land to different tenants. Muta+ons Nos.1160, 1162
and 1161 were sanc+oned on 15.10.1980 in favour of the allo9ees.
Facts leading to RSA No.1020 of 1997 & RSA No.3561 of 1997 :
Page 3 of 24
3 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
5.1 Plaint Averments : Smt. Bhuri and one of the sons Shiv Prakash in-
s+tuted Civil Suit No.353 of 1987 [later registered as CS N: 418 of 1990/1987]
claiming that the suit property detailed in head-note of the plaint was owned &
possessed by them to the extent of 2/5 share (1/5 share each), by virtue of Mu-
ta+on No.468 dated 25.04.1954, sanc+oned on 28.05.1954 (Ex.P3). According to
the plain+ffs, a par++on by metes and bounds had already been effected in the
year 1954 amongst the co-sharers, including the original landowner Moman
Ram and his sons Nathu Ram , Mani Ram, and Hari Singh. ThereaBer, during
consolida+on proceedings, the plain+ffs were allo9ed specific killa numbers in
lieu of the earlier khasra numbers, and they claimed exclusive ownership and
possession over the land so allo9ed. It was pleaded that since the plain+ffs’
share had already been separated and specific parcels had been allo9ed to
them, nothing remained joint with the landowner Moman. Consequently, any
declara+on of surplus area in the case of the landowner could not legally in-
clude the land exclusively owned and possessed by the plain+ffs, par+cularly in
the absence of no+ce and opportunity of hearing as mandated under Rule 6 of
the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956.
5.2 Plain+ffs challenged the order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P-19) passed
by defendant No.2, namely the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, ac+ng as
Collector Surplus Area/Allotment Authority in Case No.439 +tled ‘State v. Mo-
man’, by virtue of which, the share of the plain+ffs in the suit land was declared
surplus. They alleged that this order dated 13.06.1962 wrongly reflected trans-
fer of 418 bighas 1 biswa of land by the landowner, which erroneously included
the land belonging to the plain+ffs. The plain+ffs pleaded that the said order
was passed without issuance of any no+ce to them and in viola+on of manda-
tory provisions of law and, therefore, was null, illegal, void, and not binding
upon their rights.
5.3 The plain+ffs also assailed the subsequent orders of allotment
dated 25.08.1980 (Ex.P-27) and 26.02.1981 passed by defendant No.2, whereby
Page 4 of 24
4 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
por+ons of the suit land were allo9ed to third par+es without affording any op-
portunity of hearing to the plain+ffs. These allotment orders, along with the
consequen+al muta+ons sanc+oned on their basis, were also alleged to be non-
est, illegal, and liable to be set aside. Consequen+al relief of permanent injunc-
+on was sought to restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plain-
+ffs and transferring possession to the allo9ees.
5.4 Ini+ally, the suit was ins+tuted only against defendant Nos.1 and
2, namely the State of Haryana and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali,
ac+ng as Collector Surplus Area.
5.5 During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 to 6, being the
legal representa+ves of Kalu Ram and alleged allo9ees, were impleaded. It was
further averred that defendant Nos.7 to 16, being the legal heirs of Bas+ and
Budha, had forcibly dispossessed the plain+ffs from a por+on of the suit land
during the pendency of the suit at the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Con-
sequently, these defendants were also impleaded, and by way of amendment,
the plain+ffs addi+onally sought the relief of possession of the suit land.
6.1 Stand of Defendants : In their wri9en statement, defendant Nos.1
and 2 raised preliminary objec+ons regarding maintainability, limita+on, locus
standi, estoppel, jurisdic+on of the Civil Court and mis-joinder/non-joinder of
necessary par+es. On merits, it was pleaded that Moman had rightly been de-
clared a big landowner; that no+ces had been duly issued in the surplus area
proceedings; and that the land declared as tenants’ permissible area and sur-
plus was lawfully allo9ed in accordance with statutory provisions. It was further
asserted that possession had been delivered to the allo9ees in the year 1987
and that the impugned orders were legal, valid and binding upon the plain+ffs.
6.2 Defendant Nos.3 to 6 – legal heirs of Kalu Ram, claimed that a por-
+on of the suit land had been allo9ed to them as tenants’ permissible area vide
order dated 25.08.1980 and that they had been in cul+va+ng possession
Page 5 of 24
5 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
thereof. They also contended that Smt. Bhuri had earlier filed an appeal against
an order dated 12.11.1985, which demonstrated her knowledge of the surplus
proceedings.
6.3 Defendant Nos.7 to 11 – legal heirs of Bas+ son of Gumana,
pleaded that land described in their wri9en statement had been allo9ed to
their predecessor, who was in cul+va+ng possession, and that muta+on
No.1162 (Ex.P-7) had been sanc+oned in his favour. They further relied upon or-
ders dated 22.07.1987 and 25.08.1987 (Ex.P-4) to support delivery of posses-
sion.
6.4 Similarly, defendant Nos.12 to 16 – legal heirs of Buddha, asserted
that their predecessor was a tenant in cul+va+ng possession and that land had
been allo9ed to him pursuant to the surplus proceedings, followed by sanc+on
of muta+on No.1160 dated 15.10.1980 (Ex.P-9). They adopted substan+ally the
same pleas as raised by the other allo9ees, asser+ng validity of the surplus and
allotment orders and dispu+ng the plain+ffs’ exclusive ownership or possession.
7. Thus, the core controversy in this lis is about the validity of the
surplus area declara+on dated 13.06.1962, the consequen+al allotment orders
passed in 1980-81, the ques+on of no+ce to the plain+ffs, and the effect of the
alleged prior par++on and consolida+on proceedings on the competence of the
authori+es to treat the land as part of the surplus pool.
8. Findings of Courts Below : ABer framing of necessary issues, the
par+es led both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respec+ve
stands. Upon apprecia+on thereof, the learned Trial Court of Sub-Judge 1 st Class
at Dabwali, vide judgment & decree dated 12.08.1993, decreed the suit in
favour of the plain+ffs.
9.1 Aggrieved against the said decree, two separate appeals were pre-
ferred before the first Appellate Court–one by defendant Nos.3 to 14, i.e. the
Page 6 of 24
6 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
allo9ee-defendants, and the other by defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely the State
of Haryana and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, ac+ng as Collector
Surplus Area/Allotment Authority.
9.2 The plain+ffs, on the other hand, filed cross-objec+ons assailing
certain findings returned by the trial Court on some of issues.
9.3 The first appellate court of learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa,
vide judgment dated 01.03.1997, dismissed both the appeals filed by the State
authori+es as well as the allo9ees, while accepted the cross-objec+ons pre-
ferred by the plain+ffs.
10. The judgment of the first Appellate Court has given rise to two of
the present Regular Second Appeals. RSA No.1020 of 1997 has been filed by de-
fendant Nos.3 to 16, i.e. the allo9ee-defendants; whereas RSA No.3561 of 1997
has been preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely the State of Haryana and
the SDO (Civil), Dabwali, in his capacity as Collector Surplus Area/Allotment Au-
thority/Prescribed Authority.
CR-1539, 1564 & 1574 of 1997 :
11. Parallel to the adjudica+on of the above suit, certain proceedings
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC also ensued. During the pendency of the suit,
the trial Court, vide order dated 15.06.1987, restrained defendant Nos.1 and 2
from dispossessing the plain+ffs from the suit land +ll 20.08.1987, which interim
protec+on was extended from +me to +me. Despite the subsistence of the said
injunc+on, the plain+ffs were subsequently dispossessed and possession was
delivered to the allo9ees pursuant to orders of the revenue authori+es. It was
alleged by the plain+ffs that Sawarath Ram Kanungo (Pe++oner in CR-1539-
1997), had effected delivery of possession in compliance of the direc+ons issued
by Ramesh Kajal, Tehsildar, Dabwali to the allo9ees.
Page 7 of 24
7 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
12. On the plain+ffs’ applica+on under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC alleg-
ing willful disobedience of the stay order, the trial Court of Sub-Judge 1 st Class
vide order dated 24.12.1992, held the concerned revenue officials and certain
allo9ee-defendants to be guilty of viola+on and imposed varying sentences
upon the Kanungo, the Tehsildar and the concerned allo9ees. The said order
was affirmed in appeal by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, on
01.04.1997.
13. These concurrent orders under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC have led
to the filing of three Civil Revisions–CR No.1564 of 1997 by Balbir, CR No.1574
of 1997 by the allo9ee-defendants including Ladhu Ram and others, and CR
No.1539 of 1997 by Sawarath Ram, Kanungo, challenging the findings holding
them guilty of viola+on of the injunc+on order and the consequen+al imposi-
+on of sentences.
14. Thus, the present batch comprises two Regular Second Appeals di-
rected against the judgments on merits in the suit; and three Civil Revisions aris-
ing out of the ancillary proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
Facts leading to RSA No.1871 of 2006 :
15. During the pendency of the earlier round of li+ga+on, another suit
being Civil Suit No.280 of 1998 came to be ins+tuted by as many as eighteen
plain+ffs, all of whom are the legal heirs of Moman. The plain+ffs comprised his
four sons Nathu Ram, Mani Ram, Hari Singh and Shiv Prakash, and their respec-
+ve sons. The suit related specifically to land comprised in old Khasra No.18
measuring 22 Bigha 14 Biswa.
16. The founda+on of the claim was that the said land was ancestral
and coparcenary property in the hands of Moman and his sons. It was pleaded
that Moman had inherited the property from his father Sada Sukh and that the
inheritance stood reflected in Muta+on No.80 dated 04.10.1900. According to
the plain+ffs, earlier, on 05.11.1949 vide Muta+on No.407, Moman had retained
Page 8 of 24
8 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
1/6th share for himself, while 5/6th share, i.e. 1/5th share each, had been given
to his four sons and his wife Smt. Bhuri. Since then, they asserted, each branch
had been in possession of its respec+ve share as owner, being governed by the
Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
17.1 The suit was filed against three defendants, namely the widow
Amar+ Devi, and two sons of Hetram namely, Mahabir & Balaki. The plain+ffs al-
leged that defendant No.1, Amar+ Devi, had earlier filed a suit for correc+on of
Khasra Girdawari entries from Rabi 1953 against Hetram without impleading the
present plain+ffs, and that a decree dated 03.08.1964 had been passed,
whereby the entries from Rabi 1953 were corrected in her favour. It was con-
tended that up to 1955, the suit land remained in self-cul+va+on of the
landowners and that Hetram, predecessor of the defendants, entered into pos-
session only in Kharif 1955 as a tenant on payment of 1/3rd batai. Amar+ Devi,
according to the plain+ffs, never remained a tenant under them and therefore,
the decree in her favour was collusive, null and void.
17.2 The plain+ffs further pleaded that defendant Mahabir had land in
excess of the permissible area, and was himself a big landowner, and thus was
ineligible to purchase land under Sec+on 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Ten-
ure Act, 1953. It was also asserted that defendant No.1, not being a tenant,
could not lawfully purchase the land and that the order permiGng such pur-
chase was in viola+on of the mandatory provisions of Sec+on 18. They con-
tended that though an appeal had been filed before the Collector, the same was
dismissed without proper considera+on of the family arrangement reflected in
Muta+on No.407 of 1949. The order dated 30.05.1961, later reviewed on
13.06.1962, treated the en+re holding as that of Moman alone. According to
the plain+ffs, those orders stood effec+vely undermined by the judgment dated
01.03.1997 [in the earlier li ga on – CS – 353-C-1987] passed by the learned
Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, whereby Moman, his sons and widow were held
to be small landowners. On that premise, it was argued that the order permit-
Page 9 of 24
9 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
+ng purchase of the land as permissible area was a nullity and liable to be set
aside.
18. The defendants, in their wri9en statement, controverted the claim
in toto. They denied that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property as al-
leged. It was pleaded that the Collector (Surplus Area) had not recognized the
transfers effected by Moman in favour of his wife and sons as valid under the
1953 Act. The order passed by the competent authority under Sec+on 18 of the
Act permiGng purchase was asserted to be legal and valid. It was further con-
tended that the judgment dated 01.03.1997 did not set aside the purchase or-
der or the decrees in favour of the defendants, and that the land now in dispute
was not the subject ma9er of that earlier judgment. Consequently, the defen-
dants claimed that they were not bound by the findings recorded therein and
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
19. On the pleadings of the par+es, the trial Court framed the neces-
sary issues. The par+es led oral as well as documentary evidence. Upon appreci-
a+on of the material on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide
judgment & decree dated 19.02.2003. The appeal preferred by Nathu Ram and
others was also dismissed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, on
15.04.2005, affirming the findings of the trial Court.
20. These concurrent findings of fact have culminated in the filing of
RSA No.1871 of 2006 by Nathu Ram and others, being the sons and grandsons
of Moman.
Facts leading to RSA No. 1873 of 2006:
21. On similar lines, the very same set of plain+ffs, namely the sons
and grandsons of Moman, ins+tuted another suit being Civil Suit No.522-C of
1998 against eight defendants, namely Lal Chand and others, who are the legal
heirs of one Jee Sukh. This suit pertained to land comprised in old Khasra No.32
measuring 26 Bigha 1 Biswa.
Page 10 of 24
10 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
22.1 The case set up was substan+ally akin to that pleaded in Civil Suit
No.280 of 1998. The plain+ffs alleged that the defendants had entered into pos-
session of the old Khasra No.32 in Kharif 1958 and that, upon consolida+on,
land measuring 130 Kanal 03 Marla had been allo9ed in lieu thereof. It was fur-
ther pleaded that purchase had been allowed in favour of the defendants in re-
spect of 6 Kanal 13 Marla of land and that such purchase was null, illegal and
void. The principal ground urged was that the founda+onal orders dated
30.05.1961, as reviewed on 13.06.1962, concerning the land of Moman, stood
set aside by the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997 [in the earlier li ga on
– CS – 353-C-1987] passed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, and
therefore, any consequen+al purchase founded thereon could not survive.
22.2 On this premise, the plain+ffs sought a decree of declara+on to
the effect that they were owners of the suit land and that the defendants were
merely tenants thereon on payment of 1/3rd batai.
23. The defendants, while contes+ng the suit, pleaded that although
the orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 had been challenged in earlier pro-
ceedings culmina+ng in the judgment dated 01.03.1997, the order dated
29.09.1966 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dabwali, in favour of
the defendants had remained in force and had already been acted upon. It was
asserted that the plain+ffs, despite being aware of the said order, had deliber-
ately not challenged it nor impleaded the present defendants in the earlier li+-
ga+on. Consequently, the defendants contended that the judgment dated
01.03.1997 was not binding upon them, as they were not par+es thereto.
24. On the strength of the above pleas, the defendants moved an ap-
plica+on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejec+on of the plaint, also contending
that the suit was barred by limita+on. Preliminary issues were framed accord-
ingly.
Page 11 of 24
11 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
25. ABer considering the material placed on record, the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, vide judgment dated 13.11.2003, allowed the ap-
plica+on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint. The appeal pre-
ferred by the plain+ffs was dismissed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge,
Sirsa, on 06.12.2005, affirming the order of rejec+on.
26. These concurrent findings have culminated in the filing of RSA
No.1873 of 2006 by Nathu Ram and others, being the sons and grandsons of
Moman.
27. It is in this backdrop that four Regular Second Appeals, and three
Civil Revisions, arising out of the interconnected proceedings no+ced above, are
now before this Court for adjudica+on.
28. The founda+onal ground of challenge in Civil Suit No.280 of 1998,
which has culminated in RSA No.1871 of 2006 concerning old Khasra No.18, as
well as in Civil Suit No.522-C of 1998, giving rise to RSA No.1873 of 2006 con-
cerning old Khasra No.32, is the judgment & decree dated 12.08.1993 passed in
Civil Suit No.353 of 1987 [later registered as CS N: 418 of 1990/1987] by the trial
Court and affirmed on 01.03.1997 by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa.
By virtue of the said judgments, the orders dated 30.05.1961, as reviewed on
13.06.1962 by the SDO (Civil)/Surplus Area Authority, declaring the land of Mo-
man as surplus, were set aside. The plain+ffs in both subsequent suits have
sought to build their en+re case upon the said adjudica+on.
29. Likewise, Civil Revision Nos.1539 of 1997, 1564 of 1997 and 1574
of 1997, preferred by Sawarath Ram Kanungo; Balbir; and Ladhu Ram and oth-
ers respec+vely, arise out of orders dated 24.12.1992 passed by the trial Court
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, which were affirmed on 01.04.1997 by the
learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa. Those proceedings stem from the al-
leged viola+on of the interim injunc+on granted during the pendency of the suit
that ul+mately culminated in the appellate judgment dated 01.03.1997.
Page 12 of 24
12 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
30. On the other hand, RSA No.1020 of 1997, filed by the allo9ee-de-
fendants, and RSA No.3561 of 1997, preferred by the State authori+es, directly
assail the very same judgment & decree dated 01.03.1997 of the learned Addi-
+onal District Judge, Sirsa, affirming the judgment & decree dated 12.08.1993
passed by the trial Court.
31. It is, therefore, evident that the fate of RSA No.1020 of 1997 and
RSA No.3561 of 1997, which challenge the legality of the core judgment dated
12.08.1993 as affirmed on 01.03.1997, will have a decisive bearing upon the re-
maining five ma9ers. If the said judgment & decree are found unsustainable,
the very substratum of Civil Suit Nos.280 of 1998, and 522-C of 1998, and conse-
quently RSA Nos.1871 of 2006 and 1873 of 2006 arising therefrom, would be
rendered untenable. The proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, forming
subject ma9er of the three Civil Revisions, would likewise lose their founda+on.
32. In that view of the ma9er, it becomes necessary to first examine
RSA No.1020 of 1997 and RSA No.3561 of 1997, as they strike at the root of the
controversy.
Considera9on by the Court
33. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-allo9ees,
supported by learned AAG, Haryana on behalf of the State authori+es, has as-
sailed the judgments of the Courts below primarily on the ground that the en-
+re founda+on of the suit was misconceived and legally untenable. It is submit-
ted that the Courts below ignored the finality a9ached to the surplus area pro-
ceedings and the statutory bar of civil jurisdic+on.
Conten9ons of the Appellants (AlloEees & State) :
34. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-allo9ees,
duly supported by learned AAG, Haryana, has vehemently contended that Mo-
man, predecessor-in-interest of the contes+ng respondents, was admi9edly a
big landowner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. It is submit-
Page 13 of 24
13 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
ted that his surplus area case was first decided by the Collector (Surplus Area),
Dabwali, on 30.05.1961 vide order Ex.P46. It is specifically pointed out that Mo-
man had appeared during proceedings on 23.05.1961 and had even made a de-
tailed statement, as is reflected from the order. By way of this order, transfer of
418 Bigha 1 Biswa made by landowner by way of GiB was ignored, as this part-
ing away was aBer the commencement of 1953 Act. As per the order, Moman
was allowed a permissible area of 30 standard acres, equivalent to 96.38 ordi-
nary acres, in view of the decision of the Financial Commissioner in ‘Mahiya
and others v. Dalip and others’ (1960 PLJ 40). Consequently, 165.34 ordinary
acres (equivalent to 51.67 standard acres) were declared surplus and 106.65 or-
dinary acres were declared as tenants’ permissible area (TPA).
35. It is pointed out that subsequently, in light of the judgment ren-
dered by a Division Bench of this Court in Nathu v. State of Punjab (1961 PLJ
74), the Collector reviewed the earlier determina+on and vide a fresh order
dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P19), Moman was held en+tled to a permissible area of 60
ordinary acres in terms of Sec+on 2(3) of the 1953 Act. In the revised order,
106.65 acres were maintained as tenants’ permissible area, while 179.95 acres
were declared surplus.
36. It has further been pointed out that the wife and sons of Moman
preferred an appeal against the ini+al order dated 30.05.1961 before the Com-
missioner, contending that land transferred to them by way of giB on
20.05.1954 could not be clubbed with the holding of Moman and, therefore,
ought to have been excluded from computa+on of surplus area. The Commis-
sioner, however, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.08.1962 (Ex.D36),
holding that the giB, having been made aBer the appointed date i.e.
15.04.1953, was liable to be ignored under Sec+on 10-A(b) of the 1953 Act.
37. Aggrieved thereby, the wife and sons of Moman filed Revision Pe-
++on (ROR No.110 of 1962-63) before the Financial Commissioner, which too
Page 14 of 24
14 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
was dismissed on 11.01.1963 (Ex.D37). S+ll dissa+sfied, the sons of Moman in-
voked the writ jurisdic+on of this Court by filing CWP No.640 of 1963 seeking
quashing of all the aforesaid orders. The writ pe++on was dismissed on
03.01.1967 by this High Court in a judgment reported as Nathu Ram & Others
vs. Punjab State & Others, 1967 PLJ 310. Thus, the determina+on of surplus
area and tenants’ permissible area a9ained finality.
38. It is the further conten+on of learned senior counsel that the land
so declared surplus, as well as the tenants’ permissible area determined under
the orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962, vested in the State of Haryana by
virtue of Sec+on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (with
effect from the appointed date). ThereaBer, such land became available for u+-
liza+on in accordance with Paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Haryana U+liza+on of Sur-
plus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976.
39. Arguing for the appellants further, it is urged that appellants were
tenants in cul+va+ng possession of the land prior to 15.04.1953 and the area
under their tenancy having been declared as tenants’ permissible area in the
surplus proceedings, they fell within Category ‘A’ as defined under Paragraph 4
of the 1976 Scheme. Consequently, they were en+tled to allotment in terms of
Paragraph 7 of the said Scheme. It is on this basis that allotment orders were
passed in their favour by the competent Allotment Authority vide order dated
25.08.1980 (Ex.P27). The specific khasra numbers comprising the land allo9ed
to the appellants are detailed in Annexure ‘Kha’ appended to the allotment or-
der dated 25.08.1980 (Ex.P27).
40. Poin+ng to the record, it is urged that Smt. Bhuri, widow of Mo-
man, along with her son Mani Ram had preferred an appeal against the above
said allotment order before the Collector. The appeal was dismissed vide order
dated 08.02.1983 (Ex.D4). Admi9edly, the said order a9ained finality and was
never challenged thereaBer.
Page 15 of 24
15 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
41. Learned senior counsel for the appellants – allo9ees has then
traced the subsequent proceedings. ABer culmina+on of the surplus area deter-
mina+on and allotment process, Smt. Bhuri and Mani Ram moved an applica-
+on before the Collector seeking exclusion of the land in dispute from the sur-
plus pool under Sec+on 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Ceiling Act, 1972, on the plea
that the land had been transferred to them by Moman by way of a giB prior to
the relevant cut-off date. The Collector forwarded the ma9er to the Prescribed
Authority, who dismissed the applica+on vide order dated 27.04.1984 (Ex.D5).
The appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the Collector on 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6),
and a further revision (ROR No.227 of 1984-85) was rejected by the Commis-
sioner on 23.05.1986. These orders also a9ained finality.
42. It is contended that having failed in the surplus area proceedings,
the appellate and revisional hierarchy, and in the subsequent proceedings for
exclusion under the Haryana Act, Smt. Bhuri and her son Shiv Prakash ins+tuted
the present lis i.e., Civil Suit No.418 of 1987 (earlier numbered as Civil Suit
No.353-C of 1987), assailing the surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and
13.06.1962 as well as the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981.
43. A serious grievance has been raised by learned senior counsel that
the plain+ffs neither disclosed nor challenged the successive appellate and revi-
sional orders passed against them. It is pointed out that even the dismissal of
CWP No.640 of 1963 by this Court on 03.01.1967 was not brought to the no+ce
of the civil Court. Emphasis has also been laid on the order dated 13.06.1962
(Ex.P19), whereby the Collector reviewed the earlier order dated 30.05.1961
and specifically recorded that the giB of 418 Bigha 1 Biswa made by Moman in
favour of his wife and sons was to be ignored, having been effected aBer the
commencement of the 1953 Act. The order further records that no+ce was is-
sued to Moman and upon his refusal to accept it, the no+ce was affixed at his
residence and, in his absence, proceedings were taken ex parte.
Page 16 of 24
16 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
44. It is submi9ed that during his life+me, Moman never challenged
the surplus area determina+on. The challenge mounted by his wife and sons
was dismissed by the Commissioner and thereaBer by the Financial Commis-
sioner, and ul+mately by this Court in writ jurisdic+on. Despite this, the subse-
quent civil suit proceeded without assailing those higher orders.
45. On the legal plane, learned senior counsel has invoked the doc-
trine of merger, contending that once the original surplus area orders dated
30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 were carried in appeal and revision, and were af-
firmed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, the original orders
merged in the higher orders and lost their independent iden+ty. Consequently,
unless the appellate and revisional orders were specifically challenged, the foun-
da+onal orders could not be reopened in an independent civil suit. The same
principle, it is urged, applies to the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and
26.02.1981, which stood affirmed by the Collector on 08.12.1983 (Ex.D4) and
thereby merged in the appellate order.
46. In support of the aforesaid proposi+ons, reliance has been placed
upon judgments reported in Amarjit Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, 1978
PLJ 228 (DB); Dayawan6 vs. Yadvindra Public School, 1996 PLJ 59 (FB); Lucky
Home Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Coop. Socie6es, 1997 (1) RCR
(Civil) 188; Savitri Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) RCR (Civil) 510; and Chandi
Prasad Vs. Jagdish Prasad, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 737 (SC), to contend that the
decrees passed by the Courts below, ignoring the binding effect of the earlier
adjudica+ons and the doctrine of merger, are legally unsustainable.
47. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further contended
that the very ins+tu+on of the civil suit was barred for want of jurisdic+on. It is
submi9ed that the surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 were
passed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. Against such orders,
a statutory appeal was available under Sec+on 24 of the 1953 Act, read with
Page 17 of 24
17 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
Sec+ons 80 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, followed by a revisional
remedy. Sec+on 25 of the 1953 Act expressly barred the jurisdic+on of the Civil
Court in respect of ma9ers, which the authori+es under the Act were compe-
tent to determine.
48. Similarly, the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981
were passed under the Haryana U+liza+on of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme,
1976, framed under Sec+on 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1972. Paragraph 13 of the Scheme provides the mechanism for redressal, and
Sec+on 26 of the Haryana Act expressly excludes the jurisdic+on of the Civil
Court in ma9ers arising under the Act and the Scheme. In support of the plea of
bar of civil jurisdic+on, reliance has been placed upon Supreme Court decisions
‘Azad Vs. Dharampal’, Law Finder Doc Id # 28949; and Devender Singh Vs.
State of Haryana, 2006 AIR SC 2850.
49. Assailing the observa+ons & findings of the Courts below, to set
aside the surplus area orders, on the ground that no no+ce had been issued to
the wife and sons of Moman prior to passing the orders of 1961 and 1962, It is
argued that the surplus area case was required to be determined with reference
to the holding of the landowner as on 15.04.1953, the date on which the Punjab
Act, 1953 came into force. On that date, Moman was alive and was the recorded
landowner. He had been duly served and even appeared and made statement as
recorded in the order dated 30.05.1961 (Ex.P46). He was duly served even at
the +me of review order as evident from order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P19). The
alleged transfers in favour of his wife and sons were effected on 25.04.1954, i.e.
aBer the appointed date. Under the statutory scheme, par+cularly Sec+on 10-
A(c) of the 1953 Act, transfers made aBer 15.04.1953 were liable to be ignored
for purposes of surplus determina+on. If such post-appointed date transfers
were to be disregarded, the transferees could not claim independent recogni-
+on of rights in the surplus proceedings. Reliance in this regard has been placed
upon judgments reported in Karam Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1968 PLJ 190
Page 18 of 24
18 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
(DB); and The Kalianwali Co-opera6ve Farming Society vs. State of Punjab,
1969 PLJ 258 (FB).
50. It is further submi9ed that once the area declared surplus under
the Punjab Act vested in the State Government under Sec+on 12(3) of the
Haryana Act of 1972, the State became absolute owner thereof and the
landowner stood divested of all rights. Consequently, neither the landowner nor
his heirs retained any enforceable interest in the surplus land so as to require
no+ce in subsequent allotment proceedings. The State, having absolute author-
ity to u+lize the surplus area in accordance with the U+liza+on Scheme, was not
obliged to issue no+ce of allotment to the heirs of Moman. In support of this
proposi+on, reliance has been placed upon Surinder Nath Dewan Vs. State of
Haryana, (1994) 1 SCR 186 (SC); and Smt. Radha Bai Vs. State of Haryana, Law
Finder Doc Id # 35487.
51. The plea of limita+on has also been empha+cally raised by Ld. Sr.
Advocate for appellants. It is pointed out that the surplus area orders were
passed in 1961 and 1962, and the allotment orders in 1980 and 1981. However,
the present suit was ins+tuted only on 15.06.1987. It is contended that even if
the orders were assumed to be void, they were required to be challenged within
the prescribed period of limita+on. Ar+cle 100 of the Limita+on Act has been in-
voked, along with the principle that a +me-barred suit must be dismissed, even
if limita+on is not specifically pleaded, as mandated under Sec+on 3 of the Limi-
ta+on Act. Reliance has been placed upon State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh,
AIR 1992 SC 111, Prem Singh Vs. Birbal, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 381 (SC); and Kam-
lesh Babu Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma, 2008 (12) SCC 577 (SC).
52. It has been pointed out that the Courts below treated the suit as
being within limita+on by compu+ng +me from the order dated 27.05.1985
(Ex.D6), whereby the appeal against dismissal of the exemp+on applica+on was
rejected. However, the applica+on for exemp+on from the surplus pool, dis-
Page 19 of 24
19 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
missed ini+ally on 27.04.1984 (Ex.D5) and thereaBer appeal thereagainst was
dismissed on 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6). The dismissal of such applica+on could not re-
vive or extend the limita+on period for challenging the surplus area orders of
1961-62 or the allotment orders of 1980-81.
53. It has further been pointed out by learned senior counsel that the
order dated 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6), passed by the Collector in appeal arising out of
the exemp+on proceedings, was never challenged by the plain+ffs. In such cir-
cumstances, the period of limita+on for ques+oning the original surplus area or-
ders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962, or the allotment orders dated
25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981, could not be computed from 27.05.1985. At best, a
challenge could have been laid to the order dated 27.05.1985 itself. However,
that order was not impugned in the suit. The inevitable consequence is that the
suit, insofar as it sought to assail the surplus and allotment orders, was hope-
lessly barred by limita+on.
54. Concluding his submissions, it is urged that the findings recorded
by the Courts below on jurisdic+on, no+ce and limita+on are legally untenable
and call for interference.
Conten9ons of the Respondents (Plain9ffs) :
55. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plain-
+ffs has supported the judgments of the Courts below.
56. It is contended that the land in dispute had already been trans-
ferred by Moman in favour of his wife and sons prior to the surplus proceedings
and that the plain+ffs had become owners in possession of their respec+ve
shares by virtue of Muta+on No.468 dated 25.04.1954.
57. According to the respondents, the plain+ffs’ shares had already
been separated through par++on and consolida+on proceedings and therefore,
Page 20 of 24
20 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
the land in their possession could not have been included in the surplus area of
Moman.
58. Learned counsel further submits that no no+ce was ever issued to
the plain+ffs before declaring the land as surplus. Since the order dated
13.06.1962 was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, the
same was void and liable to be ignored.
59. It is also contended that the allotment orders of 1980 and 1981
were passed without no+ce to the plain+ffs and without verifying the true own-
ership of the land.
60. On this basis, learned counsel argues that the Courts below rightly
held that the surplus area orders and subsequent allotment proceedings were il-
legal and not binding upon the plain+ffs.
61. However, when this court queried Ld. Counsel for the respondents
regarding decision of this court in writ pe++on 640 of 1963, filed by sons of Mo-
man, which was dismissed on 03.01.1967 by this High Court in a judgment re-
ported as Nathu Ram & Others vs. Punjab State & Others, 1967 PLJ 310, which
fact was concealed from the court leading to passing of the concurrent orders
by courts below, Ld. Counsel submi9ed that he was not made aware about the
same by his party.
Findings of this Court
62. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced on be-
half of the par+es and has carefully examined the record.
63. The primary ques+on, which arises for considera+on is whether
the surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 could be challenged in
a civil suit ins+tuted in the year 1987, par+cularly when those orders had al-
ready been affirmed in appeal, revision and even in writ proceedings before this
Court.
Page 21 of 24
21 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
64. The record clearly reveals that the surplus area proceedings culmi-
nated not only in orders of the Collector but were also examined by the Com-
missioner and the Financial Commissioner, and thereaBer by this Court in writ
jurisdic+on. Once the ma9er had a9ained finality through the statutory hierar-
chy and judicial scru+ny, the same could not be reopened by way of a civil suit.
65. The conten+on raised on behalf of the respondents that the trans-
fer made by Moman in favour of his wife and sons was liable to exemp+on un-
der Sec+on 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act is equally untenable. In the subsequent
suits filed in 1998 [CS No. 522-C of 1998-2002; and CS No. 280 of 1998 giving
rise to RSA 1871 & 1873 of 2006], an a9empt was made to suggest that the giB
had in fact been effected in 1949 and only the muta+on was sanc+oned in 1954.
66. The record belies the above submission. Muta+on No.468 dated
27.05.1954 (Ex.P3), relied upon by the plain+ffs themselves, refers to an alleged
oral giB (Tamliq Malqiat Jubani) dated 25.05.1954, whereby Moman is stated to
have transferred 418 Bigha 1 Biswa of land in favour of his wife and four sons.
There is no reference whatsoever to any transfer in the year 1949. Not only this,
even CWP No. 640 of 1963 was filed by sons of Moman assailing the surplus or-
ders of 30.05.1961 and the orders passed by appellate and revisional authority
on the plea of 1949 GiB, but this court had dismissed the writ pe++on on
03.01.1967. Thus, the giB must be taken to have been made in 1954, i.e. aBer
the appointed date of 15.04.1953.
67. S+ll further, once it is undisputed that the appellants-allo9ees
were in cul+va+ng possession of the land as tenants prior to 15.04.1953 and
that the land was declared as tenants’ permissible area in the surplus proceed-
ings dated 30.05.1961 as reviewed on 13.06.1962, the legal posi+on is well set-
tled that such tenancy area is deemed to have been u+lized from the date of its
declara+on as TPA. The subsequent allotment under the U+liza+on Scheme is
merely a formal step to regulate compensa+on and confer proprietary rights.
Page 22 of 24
22 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
The land having already stood u+lized by virtue of the surplus declara+on, no
benefit under Sec+on 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act could enure to the landowners.
Judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have consis-
tently affirmed this posi+on.
68. Even otherwise, a transferee of surplus area from a big landowner
aBer 15.04.1953 cannot claim restora+on of possession from tenants, who have
been se9led in accordance with law by invoking Sec+on 8(1)(a). The exemp+on
plea, in any case, cannot be entertained in the present proceedings. The exemp-
+on applica+on had been dismissed on 27.04.1984 (Ex.D5) and the appeal
thereagainst rejected on 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6). Those orders were never chal-
lenged. The only orders assailed in the suit were the surplus area orders of
1961-62 and the allotment orders of 1980-81, all of which had long since at-
tained finality. The issue of exemp+on was, therefore, wholly extraneous to the
scope of the suit.
69. Moreover, the challenge raised by the plain+ffs was hopelessly be-
lated. The surplus area orders were passed in 1961-62 and the allotment orders
in 1980-81, whereas the suit was ins+tuted only in 1987. The Courts below, in
trea+ng the suit as being within limita+on by compu+ng +me from the order
dated 27.05.1985, commi9ed a patent error.
70. Viewed from any angle, whether of jurisdic+on, finality, limita+on,
merger, or substan+ve en+tlement, the judgments & decrees dated 12.08.1993
passed by the trial Court and 01.03.1997 passed by the learned Addi+onal Dis-
trict Judge, Sirsa, cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly set aside and
Civil Suit No.353-C of 1987 (also referred to as Civil Suit No.418 of 1987) filed by
Smt. Bhuri and her son Shiv Prakash stands dismissed with costs.
71. Consequently, RSA No.1020 of 1997 filed by defendant Nos.3 to 16
(allo9ees), and RSA No.3561 of 1997 filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (State au-
thori+es) are allowed.
Page 23 of 24
23 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::
RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M)
CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997;
CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M);
RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)
72. As a necessary corollary, RSA No.1871 of 2006, and RSA No.1873
of 2006, preferred by the sons and grandsons of Moman in respect of khasra
Nos.18 and 32 respec+vely, are hereby dismissed.
73. Since the allotment orders and the declara+on of tenants’ permis-
sible area in favour of the allo9ees have been upheld as legal and valid, the
founda+on of the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC disappears. The
order dated 01.03.1997 affirming the trial Court’s decree having been set aside,
the applica+on under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC filed by Smt. Bhuri and her son
cannot survive. Accordingly, Civil Revision Nos.1539 of 1997, 1564 of 1997 and
1574 of 1997 are allowed.
74. All seven ma9ers stand disposed of in the above terms.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
05.03.2026
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Uploaded on.: 06.03.2026
Page 24 of 24
24 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 05:16:06 :::