Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) State Of Haryana vs Mam Kauri on 6 March, 2024
127 2024:PHHC:032743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2249-1989 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 06, 2024
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ........Appellants
Versus
MAM KAURI AND ORS. ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate and
Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate for the respondents.
Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for
the applicants in CM-715-C-2021.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgment and decree dated 30.03.1989 passed by the Court of learned
Addl. District Judge, Sirsa, whereby, a judgment and decree dated
22.08.1988 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, First Class, Dabwali,
District Sirsa, dismissing the suit for declaration, filed at the instance of
respondents-plaintiffs was reversed.
2. Briefly stating, the case pleaded on behalf of respondents-
plaintiffs was that plaintiff No.1 was a big landowner under the
provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter
referred to as '1953 Act') who gifted out an area measuring 123 acres in
favour of her daughters namely Shanti and Manohari through gift deed
dated 02.01.1957 followed by mutation No.499 sanctioned in their
favour on 31.01.1958. In a separate but related development, the
Collector vide its order dated 30.05.1961 declared an area of 38.08
standard acres belonging to respondent No.1 as surplus area.
3. Aggrieved thereof, the daughters of respondent No.1
2024:PHHC:032743 -2-
RSA-2249-1989 (O&M)
plaintiff No.1 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Ambala
Division, Ambala Cantt. which came to be decided vide order dated
10.09.1962 and the matter was sent back to Collector for determining
the permissible area afresh. Pursuant thereto, the Collector passed a
fresh order dated 07.06.1963 declaring 93.28 ordinary acres as surplus
area of the big landowner. In pursuance thereof, the surplus area was
allotted in favour of certain private individuals being tenants vide order
dated 18.12.1981 and 28.01.1982. Primarily challenge in the suit was
made to the passing of order dated 07.06.1963 and the allotments
dated 18.12.1981 and 28.01.1982, being in violation of natural justice or
opportunity of hearing and thus, prayed for declaring the same as
illegal, null and void.
4. The suit was contested at the instance of appellants-
defendants while submitting that it was hit by Section 80 of CPC as no
notice was served upon the appellants-defendants before filing of the
suit besides objecting that the civil Court was having no jurisdiction to
decide the suit challenging the orders passed by the authorities under
1953 Act.
5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.1988
dismissed the suit filed at the instance of respondents-plaintiffs.
Aggrieved thereof, respondents-plaintiffs filed First appeal, the same
was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.1989 passed by
Addl. District Judge, Sirsa thereby decreeing the suit in favour of
respondents-plaintiffs while reversing the judgment and decree dated
22.08.1988, passed by the trial Court.
2024:PHHC:032743 -3-
RSA-2249-1989 (O&M)
6. Impugning the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by
the First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellants being
unable to justify the passing of the order dated 07.06.1963 by the
Collector being in violation of principles of natural justice prayed that in
the given circumstances the First Appellate Court was at least required
to afford an opportunity to the appellants-defendants for passing a fresh
order in terms of directions issued by the Commissioner Ambala
Division, Ambala Cantt. vide its order dated 10.09.1962 for fresh
determination of the permissible area.
7. In response, learned counsel representing respondents-
plaintiffs fairly points out that though, order dated 07.06.1963 was
passed against them in violation of principles of natural justice,
however, undoubtedly, the authorities under 1953 Act were required to
be given a chance to pass fresh order in terms of observations made by
Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. in its order dated
10.09.1962 for fresh determination of permissible area by the Collector.
He further submits that the factum of non-serving of notice or absence
of opportunity of hearing to the respondents-plaintiffs was even
admitted by DW-1 Patwari, Surplus Area in his deposition before the
trial Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned
counsel representing the parties, the judgment and decree dated
30.03.1989, passed by the learned First Appellate Court is modified and
the present appeal is disposed of while granting liberty to the appellants
2024:PHHC:032743 -4-
RSA-2249-1989 (O&M)
through Collector, exercising powers under 1953 Act to pass fresh order
as regards the determination of permissible land in terms of order dated
10.09.1962 (Ex. P-4) passed by the Commissioner Division Ambala,
Ambala Cantt. Considering the fact that the issue relating to
determination of permissible area is sub-judice for the past almost
seven decades, the Collector is directed to determine the same within a
period of six months from today, upon affording of opportunity of
hearing to the respondents-plaintiffs by passing a speaking and
reasoned order thereupon.
9. In view of the aforesaid, no orders are required to be passed
on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the same thus stands
disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
06.03.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
