Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Lal (Since Deceased) And ... vs Som Parkash And Ors on 15 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005560
2024:PHHC:005560
108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-6408-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.01.2024
Sant Lal (since deceased) and represented by his Lrs and others
....Appellant
Versus
Som Parkash and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Mohunta and
Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Advocates for the appellant
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
CM-16603-C-2017
1. Allowed as prayed for, subject to all the just exceptions.
The legal representatives of the deceased appellant no.1- Sant Lal,
as mentioned in para 2 of the application, are permitted to be
brought on record, for the purpose of prosecuting the present appeal.
2. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
Main case
3. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab,
Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are governed by Section
41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs vs.
Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005560
RSA-6408-2017 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:005560
4. In this Regular Second Appeal, the plaintiff prays for
setting aside the concurrent judgments passed by the courts below
while dismissing his suit for the grant of decree of declaration to the
effect that they are the joint owners in possession of the property
and the orders dated 24.03.1961 and 18.05.1961, passed by the
competent authority, while declaring the land as surplus area, being
beyond the ceiling limit and also for setting aside various other
orders. The suit was filed on 26.07.2005. Both the courts have
found that not only the suit filed by the plaintiff is beyond the
prescribed time period but even the jurisdiction of the civil court is
barred.
5. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the
present case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
6. Originally Sh.Jagadhar Mal was the owner of the
property. After his death, Sh.Krishan Chand, his son became the
owner of the said property. During his lifetime, proceedings under
the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 were started to
determine the land beyond ceiling limit in his hands. On
24.03.1961, the Collector found that Sh.Krishan Chand was a big
landowner and his land holding was more than the prescribed upper
ceiling limit. On 18.05.1961, the Collector Agrarian modified the
order and extended the tenants area located within the municipal
area Kanjnu.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005560
RSA-6408-2017 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:005560
4. On the application submitted by the tenants in
possession of the land at Village Kanjnu, they were allowed to
purchase the land after a long drawn litigation on 28.12.1976. Once
again, the litigation at the hands of the big landowners continued
before the revenue authorities which culminated into final order
passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 26.02.1980.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit on 14.07.1997 in the civil
court at Chandigarh. The civil suit remained pending for a period of
7 years, however, the plaintiffs withdrew the said suit after 7 years
with liberty to file a fresh one. Thereafter, the present suit was filed
in the year 2005. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Order
XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has also been
filed to produce in additional evidence copies of jamabandi for the
year 1954-55, 1962-63 khasra Girdawari for the years 1956-60
mutation entry, order passed by the Collector on 31.05.1973, and the
Financial Commissioner's order passed on 07.01.1997. In all these
documents, an effort is made to impress upon the court to interfere
with the various orders/proceedings which were finalized under the
Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 and subsequently, under
the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Both the courts
have held that neither the civil court has the jurisdiction nor the suit
filed by the plaintiffs is within the prescribed period of limitation. It
has been concluded that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the
proceedings including the order declaring the land surplus and
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005560
RSA-6408-2017 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:005560
permitting the tenants in possession to purchase the land. Moreover,
filing of suit at Chandigarh was also not bonafide exercise.
Furthermore, the Financial Commissioner finally decided the matter
on 26.12.1980. For a period of 17 years, the plaintiffs did not take
any steps.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion if
the documents produced before the court in additional evidence are
taken into account, even then the appeal lacks substance and merit.
6. Hence, dismissed accordingly.
7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
also disposed of.
15.01.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005560
4 of 4
