[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Harpat And Others vs Boota Singh And Others on 28 November, 2025
RSA-3307-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3307-1998
Harpat (deceased through LRs) ...Appellants
Versus
Boota Singh and others ...Respondents
Reserved on 20.11.2025
Date of decision: 28.11.2025
Uploaded on 28.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defend-
ant No.4 - the allo,ee Harpat Singh, assailing the concurrent findings re-
corded by the Courts below, whereby the suit ins/tuted by the plain/ffs -
Boota Singh and the legal representa/ves of Karam Singh (respondents N: 1
to 3 herein), seeking declara/on of ownership and recovery of possession
of suit land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Gidder Khera, District
Sirsa, was decreed by the trial Court on 24.09.1994 and affirmed by the
First Appellate Court on 23.10.1998.
Page N: 1 of total 16 Pages
1 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
2. For convenience, the par/es shall be referred to by their posi-
/ons before the Trial Court. The trial Court record has been requisi/oned
and examined.
3. Background Facts: Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that
the surplus-area case of landowner Inder Singh R/o village Ganga was de-
cided by the Collector, Surplus Area, vide order dated 27.09.1961 (Ex.P-9).
The suit land measuring 24 kanals, situated in the revenue estate of village
Gidder Kheda, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, and fully described in the head-
note of the plaint, was included in the surplus pool of Inder Singh. At the
relevant /me, Boota Singh (plain/ff No.1) and Karam Singh (predecessor-in-
interest of plain/ffs No.2 and 3) stood recorded as tenants in cul/va/ng
possession of the suit land. Subsequently, the suit land along with other
parcels was allo,ed to defendant No.4 Harpat Singh (appellant herein) vide
allotment le,er dated 29.09.1989 (Ex.P-10), and pursuant thereto, posses-
sion was delivered to him vide Rapat Roznamcha No.86 dated 11.11.1989
(Ex.D-1).
4.1 Plain ffs' Pleadings : In this background, the plain/ffs ins/-
tuted the present suit in November 1989, asser/ng that they and their pre-
decessors had been in cul/va/ng possession of the suit land for two gener-
a/ons. According to them, their forefathers were occupancy tenants under
the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and upon the enactment of the Punjab Oc-
cupancy Tenants (Ves/ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951, they became
owners because they never paid rent to the proprietor and only paid a
nominal cash amount less than the land revenue. It was pleaded that while
declaring the surplus area of Inder Singh in 1961, the Collector, Surplus
Area, did not serve any no/ce upon them, despite their possession as ten-
ants. Therefore, the order dated 27.09.1961 was asserted to be null, void,
without jurisdic/on, and inopera/ve qua their rights.
Page N: 2 of total 16 Pages
2 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
4.2 The plain/ffs further pleaded that they had earlier ins/tuted a
separate suit in 1983 seeking a declara/on of ownership in respect of the
very same land against Inder Singh and others. That suit was decreed on
21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1), whereby they (plain/ffs) were declared owners in pos-
session. Consequently, at the /me when the allotment order dated
29.09.1989 (Ex.P-10) was passed, Inder Singh no longer had any subsis/ng
right in the suit land. The plain/ffs alleged that on the strength of the afore-
said allotment, their possession was forcibly taken and so, the Rapat Roz-
namcha dated 11.11.1989 (Ex.D-1) was illegal, void, and without jurisdic-
/on.
4.3 On these averments, the plain/ffs prayed for a decree declar-
ing them to be owners in possession of the suit land, and en/tled to restor-
a/on of possession.
5. Stand of State Authori es (Defendants No.1 and 2) : The State
Authori/es contested the suit by raising preliminary objec/ons and sub-
miHng that the plain/ffs or their predecessors were merely tenants on
batai- hai and had never acquired ownership. It was asserted that the sur-
plus declara/on dated 27.09.1961 was legal and valid, having been passed
strictly in accordance with law. It was further contended that plain/ff No.1
was already owner in possession of land measuring 146 kanals 6 marlas in
Khewat No.59, and plain/ffs No.2 and 3 were owners in possession of land
measuring 215 kanals 13 marlas in Khewat Nos.59 and 60 of village Ganga,
thus, rendering them ineligible for allotment of any land under surplus-area
schemes. The allotment order dated 29.09.1989 was defended as lawful
and valid. Other averments of the plaint were denied, and dismissal of the
suit was sought.
Page N: 3 of total 16 Pages
3 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
6. Defendant No.3, having no direct concern with the dispute,
chose not to contest the suit and was accordingly proceeded against ex
parte.
7. Stand of Defendant No.4 (Allo#ee-Appellant) : Defendant
No.4 - Harpat Singh, the allo,ee, filed a separate wri,en statement adopt-
ing in substance the stand taken by the State Authori/es. He asserted that
the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961 was valid; that the allotment order
dated 29.09.1989 and delivery of possession on 11.11.1989 were lawful;
and that he had become owner in possession pursuant to a valid allotment
by competent authori/es. He too prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8.1 Findings of the Courts Below : The learned Trial Court, aJer
examining the evidence, held that the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961
was not binding upon the plain/ffs. It found that the plain/ffs were recor-
ded tenants in possession of the suit land at the relevant /me and no no-
/ce had been served upon them during the surplus proceedings, rendering
the said order void and without jurisdic/on. The Court further observed
that in view of the judgment dated 21.04.1987 passed in Civil Suit No.31 of
1983, the plain/ffs had already been declared owners in possession of the
suit land. Consequently, the subsequent allotment order dated 29.09.1989,
which was also passed without no/ce to the plain/ffs, was equally liable to
be declared null and void.
8.2 The Trial Court accordingly declared the surplus-area order
dated 27.09.1961, the allotment order dated 29.09.1989, and Rapat Roz-
namcha No.86 dated 11.11.1989 as illegal, void and inopera/ve against the
rights of the plain/ffs. It also held that the civil Court possessed the jurisdic-
/on to adjudicate such ma,ers, since the impugned orders suffered from
lack of jurisdic/on. Declaring the plain/ffs to be owners of the suit land, the
Page N: 4 of total 16 Pages
4 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
Court further held that, having been dispossessed during the pendency of
the suit, they were en/tled to recovery of possession.
9. The judgment and decree dated 24.09.1994 passed by the Trial
Court as challenged by defendant No.4-Harpat Singh (the allo,ee), but the
First Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the en/re record, concurred with
all findings of the Trial Court and dismissed his appeal vide judgment dated
23.10.1998.
10.1 Conten ons of the Appellant: Assailing the concurrent findings
of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 (the
allo,ee) contends that the plain/ffs had nowhere pleaded, when they first
acquired knowledge of the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961. It is ar-
gued that neither Inder Singh, the big landowner, nor the plain/ffs ever
challenged the said 1961 order prior to the filing of the present suit. Ac-
cording to the appellant, once the surplus order remained unchallenged for
nearly three decades, the suit ins/tuted in 1989 was hopelessly barred by
limita/on.
10.2 Learned counsel further submits that when the plain/ffs filed
Civil Suit No.31 of 1983 seeking declara/on of ownership, they impleaded
only Inder Singh and other private individuals, but not the State Authori/es.
By virtue of the surplus declara/on dated 27.09.1961, the suit land was
already vested in the State under the provisions of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenure Act read with Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1972. Consequently, the State had become the full-fledged
owner, and any decree obtained against Inder Singh alone could not bind
the State. On this premise, it is argued that the judgment dated 21.04.1987
(Ex.P-1) did not confer any rights upon the plain/ffs vis-à-vis the State or its
allo,ee.
Page N: 5 of total 16 Pages
5 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
10.3 It is also the conten/on of learned counsel that the judgment
of 1987 was procured by the plain/ffs in collusion with Inder Singh, who
having lost /tle in 1961, had no subsis/ng interest in the suit land. There-
fore, the 1987 decree, being collusive and obtained against a person who
had no /tle, was not binding upon any of the defendants in the present
proceedings.
10.4 Ld. Counsel for the appellant addi/onally argues that no no/ce
was required to be served either upon the owner or upon the allo,ee at
the stage of declaring the land surplus. He further relies upon the
jamabandi entries from 1955 onwards to contend that the plain/ffs were
recorded merely as tenants on 1/3rd batai, thereby nega/ng their claim of
being occupancy tenants under Inder Singh. It is submi,ed that the plea of
occupancy tenancy is a self-serving fabrica/on.
10.5 Ld. Counsel for appellant also asserts that the jurisdic/on of
the civil Court was expressly barred in ma,ers rela/ng to surplus-area de-
cisions and allotments made thereunder. On these grounds, as well as the
plea that the 1989 suit amounted to an impermissible challenge to the sur-
plus order of 1961 aJer an inordinate delay, learned counsel prays that the
judgments and decrees of both Courts below be set aside and the suit of
the plain/ffs be dismissed.
11.1 Conten ons of Respondents - Plain ffs : Refu/ng the submis-
sions advanced on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.1 to 3 (plain/ffs) contends that the judgment dated
21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1) conclusively declared the plain/ffs to be owners in pos-
session of the suit land aJer a full-fledged trial in Civil Suit No.31 of 1983.
The said suit had been ins/tuted in 1983 and was decided aJer leading ex-
haus/ve oral and documentary evidence. It is argued that the decree was
not collusive, as alleged by the appellant, and significantly, neither the
Page N: 6 of total 16 Pages
6 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
State nor the present appellant ever sought to challenge or set aside that
decree by filing any counterclaim or separate proceedings, even when they
had the opportunity to do so in the present suit.
11.2 Learned counsel further submits that, even assuming for the
sake of argument (though not admiHng) that the plain/ffs were not occu-
pancy tenants, the revenue record demonstrates that they were at least
tenants in cul/va/ng possession since 1950-51. As such, they were man-
datorily en/tled to no/ce before the land could be declared surplus. The
surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961, passed without issuing no/ce to the
tenants in possession, was in direct viola/on of Rule 6 of the Punjab Secur-
ity of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, and was therefore void ab ini/o.
11.3 It is argued that ves/ng of surplus land in the State under Sec-
/on 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 applies only to
validly declared surplus land. Where the founda/onal surplus-area order it-
self is void for the want of mandatory no/ce to tenants, no /tle could vest
in the State, and consequently the State had no authority to allot the land
to defendant No.4. Reliance is placed on the jamabandi for the year 1950-
51, wherein the plain/ffs are recorded as tenants on fixed rent less than
the land revenue, an indicator of occupancy rights under Sec/ons 5 and 8
of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Ld. Counsel submits that it was only aJer con-
solida/on that entries were altered to reflect 1/3rd batai, and even this
change was made without no/ce to the plain/ffs. This factual posi/on was
considered by the Civil Court in 1987 while holding that the plain/ffs had
acquired occupancy rights, which ripened into ownership.
11.4 It is thus urged that, even if the Court were to hold that the
plain/ffs had not acquired ownership under the 1952 Act, their long-stand-
ing status as tenants in possession since 1950-51 en/tled them to a no/ce
under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. In the absence of such no-
Page N: 7 of total 16 Pages
7 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
/ce, the land could not have been declared surplus, allo,ed to any other
person, or possession delivered to the allo,ee. On all these grounds,
learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of the present ap-
peal.
12. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for
both sides at length and has carefully examined the en/re record.
Analysis by this Court:
13.1 Jamabandis from 1950-51 to 1980-81 (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-8) consist-
ently record plain/ff Boota Singh and his brother Karam Singh (predecessor
of plain/ffs No.2 and 3) as tenants in cul/va/ng possession of the suit land.
Inder Singh and others were recorded as owners. Owing to this long-stand-
ing possession, the plain/ffs ins/tuted Civil Suit No.31 of 1983 seeking de-
clara/on of ownership against the recorded landowners. The trial Court,
while delivering judgment on 21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1), relied heavily upon
Jamabandi 1950-51 and 1955-56, showing plain/ffs as tenants on fixed rent
less than land revenue. Such an entry is a recognised indicia of occupancy
tenancy under Sec/ons 5 & 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
13.2 The civil court in 1987 judgment Ex.P1 rejected the defence of
Inder Singh that he received 1/3rd batai from the plain/ffs. That plea had
already been dismissed in appeal by the Assistant Collector, Dabwali, and
no reason was shown for the subsequent change of entries to 1/3rd batai in
later jamabandis. No evidence explained this change. On these facts, the
Civil Court in Ex.P1 gave a categorical finding that the plain/ffs had ac-
quired occupancy rights, which had matured into ownership.
13.3 There is nothing on record to show that the judgment dated
21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1) was ever challenged by Inder Singh or his legal repres-
enta/ves. Even in the present proceedings neither the State nor the allot-
tee filed any counter-claim to annul or even ques/on the decree Ex.P1. This
Page N: 8 of total 16 Pages
8 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
gives the decree a presump/on of correctness under Sec/on 43 of the Evid-
ence Act, and a judgment inter par/es remains binding unless set aside.
14.1 The appellant contends that because the State was not a party
to the 1983 suit, the 1987 judgment (Ex.P-1) cannot bind the State, since
the land had allegedly vested in the State in 1961 pursuant to surplus
declara/on and Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1972.
14.2 Although the argument appears a,rac/ve at first glance, it col-
lapses upon examina/on because the appellant's case rests en/rely upon
the assump/on that the surplus-area order of 1961 was valid and operat-
ive. If the founda/onal 1961 surplus order itself is void ab ini/o, no ves/ng
under Sec/on 12(3) could ever occur. A void order is a nullity and confers
no rights.
15. Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, are relev-
ant to the case, which reads as under:
"6. Assessment of surplus area, with landowners and tenants. -
(1) Every patwari shall prepare, in duplicate, statements in Forms
D and DD for every landowner and tenant, respec/vely, who owns or
holds land in excess of the permissible area in his circle, and shall re-
tain one copy of each such Form himself and forward the other to the
circle kanungo.
(2) The circle kanungo shall, aJer personal examina/on, test all
entries made by the patwari in Form D or Form DD and forward it to
the circle revenue officer.
(3) The circle revenue officer, shall, aJer holding such enquiry as
he thinks fit and aJer giving the persons concerned, an opportunity
of being heard, forward his report to the Collector.
Page N: 9 of total 16 Pages
9 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
(4) Where, in the case of a landowner, Forms A, C and E, and in
the case of a tenant, Forms B and C, have been received by the Col-
lector, from the Special Collector, under rule 4-C, the Collector shall,
aJer holding such enquiry, as he thinks fit, return them to the Special
Collector, along with Form D, in the case of a landowner and Form
DD in the case of a tenant.
(5) In the case of a landowner or tenant who has furnished his
Form to the Special Collector, under rules 3 and 4, the Special Col-
lector shall [aJer giving the landlord or tenant an opportunity of be-
ing heard and] aJer such enquiry as he thinks fit, assess his surplus
area. In doing so, he shall hear any objec/ons made by the
landowner or tenant, and in a wri,en order decide such objec/ons.
In case no objec/ons are made or the person affected does not ap-
pear, the fact shall be stated in the order.
(6) In the case of a landowner or tenant who has furnished his
Forms of the Collector, under rules 3 and 4, the Collector shall a2er
giving the landlord or tenant an opportunity of being heard and
a2er such enquiry as he thinks fit, assess his surplus area. In doing
so, he shall hear any objec ons made by the landowner or tenant,
and in a wri#en order decide such objec ons. In case no objec ons
are made or the person affected does not appear, the fact shall be
stated in the order.
(7)(i) The Collector or the Special Collector shall prepare a statement
in Form F and forward immediately a copy thereof to the landowner
or tenant concerned under cover of an endorsement prescribed in
the Form and it shall be served upon the landowner or tenant as if it
were a summons in the manner prescribed in sec/on 90 of the Pun-
jab Tenancy Act, 1887.
Page N: 10 of total 16 Pages
10 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
(ii) The Special Collector shall also forward a copy of Form F pre-
pared by him to the Collector of every district in which the surplus
area of the landowner or tenant is situate.
(8) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector or the Spe-
cial Collector, may within 60 days from the date of communica/on of
the decision to such person, to be computed aJer excluding the /me
spent in obtaining a copy of such decision, appeal to -
(a) the Commissioner of the Division where the person resides, in
case the person resides in Ambala or Jullundur Division;
(b) the Commissioner of the Division where the largest por/on of the
holding of the person is situate, in case the person resides outside
Ambala and Jullundur Divisions; and the decision of the Commis-
sioner which shall be duly communicated by the Commissioner to the
Collector or Collectors concerned shall be final.
(9) The Collector or the Special Collector or the Commissioner
shall not while deciding any case under this rule, entertain any claim
from a landowner for the exemp/on of any area on any of the
grounds set forth in sub-rule (1) of rule 10.]
16. The plain/ffs were recorded as tenants since 1950-51. Under
Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, as reproduced
above, no/ce to tenants in cul/va/ng possession is mandatory before de-
claring land as surplus. Admi,edly, no no/ce was served upon the plain/ffs
before passing the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961. Orders passed be-
hind the back of mandatory necessary par/es are void. Reliance can be
placed on State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, AIR 1974 SC 994; and Ram
Swarup v. S.N. Maira, AIR 1999 SC 2427.
Page N: 11 of total 16 Pages
11 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
17. A surplus-area order passed without jurisdic/on cannot vest
land in the State under Sec/on 12 of the 1972 Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that ves/ng under Ceiling Acts applies only to validly declared sur-
plus land. Reliance can be placed on Kela Devi v. Financial Commissioner,
(1980) 3 SCC 64.
18. The central argument advanced on behalf of the appellant--
that once land is declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure
Act, it vests in the State under Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1972, irrespec/ve of u/lisa/on or con/nued possession, pro-
ceeds upon the assump/on that the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961
was validly passed in accordance with law. It is on this premise that learned
counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a catena of judgments in-
cluding Dharampal v. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 37; Amar
Singh v. Ajmer Singh, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 213; Dona Ram v. State of Hary-
ana, 2012 (1) LAR 384; Gopal v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 466;
Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) Law Herald 302;
Surendranath Diwan v. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) RRR 115; Smt. Bhag-
wan Devi v. State of Haryana, 1994 (2) RRR 358; and Ujagar Singh v.
State of Haryana, 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 960. These decisions no doubt hold
that once surplus-area proceedings have a,ained finality, and a valid sur-
plus declara/on exists, ves/ng in the State occurs by opera/on of law and
is not dependent on u/lisa/on or the con/nued possession of the
landowner.
19. However, the aforesaid line of decisions rests upon one found-
a/onal presump/on, which is conspicuously absent in the present case,
namely, that the surplus-area order was validly made. Here, the record
leaves no manner of doubt that the plain/ffs were tenants in cul/va/ng
possession of the suit land ever since 1951-52, as evidenced by jamabandis
from 1950-51 to 1980-81. Under Rule 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Punjab Security
Page N: 12 of total 16 Pages
12 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, it was mandatory upon the Collector to serve
no/ce upon such tenants before declaring any land as surplus. The admit-
ted posi/on is that no such no/ce was ever served upon the plain/ffs prior
to passing of the surplus order dated 27.09.1961. The surplus declara/on
was, thus, passed in complete viola/on of the statutory mandate and
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the tenants, whose rights
were directly affected.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh
(supra) and Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira (supra) has authorita/vely held that
an order passed without no/ce to a person, who is mandatorily required to
be heard is wholly without jurisdic/on and void ab ini/o. A void order is
non-est in the eyes of law and cannot confer any rights on any party. Vest-
ing under Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act can take effect only
where surplus land is validly declared. This principle is further for/fied by
the decisions in Financial Commissioner v. Kela Devi (supra), wherein the
Supreme Court held that ves/ng under Sec/on 12(3) postulates a valid sur-
plus declara/on.
21. Consequently, the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961, having
been passed without jurisdic/on, could not have resulted in ves/ng of /tle
in the State on 23.12.1972 or on any subsequent date. Once the very
founda/on of the State's /tle collapses, the en/re edifice of allotment in fa-
vour of the appellant necessarily falls.
22. Further, Ld. Counsel for the appellant's reliance on judgments
such as Smt. Radha Bai v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 509; Meg
Raj v. Manphul, 2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 649; Devender Singh v. State of Hary-
ana, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 491; Mahinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008
(1) PLR 96; and Azad v. Dharampal, 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 139, to contend
that the civil Court's jurisdic/on is barred by Sec/on 26 of the Haryana Ceil-
Page N: 13 of total 16 Pages
13 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
ing Act, is equally misplaced. The bar under Sec/on 26 applies to orders
passed within jurisdic/on by the prescribed authori/es under the 1972 Act.
It has no applica/on to a case, where the founda/onal order is void ab ini-
/o.
23. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. In Dhulabhai v.
State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78, the Supreme Court held that where the or-
der complained of is a nullity, the civil Court retains jurisdic/on. This prin-
ciple was reiterated in categorical terms by the Full Bench of this Court in
State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1986 PLJ 161, wherein it was held that a
surplus-area order passed without hearing the landowner/tenant as man-
dated by Rule 6 is a nullity and that a civil suit to challenge such an order is
maintainable notwithstanding Sec/on 25 or Sec/on 26. This binding pre-
cedent directly answers the objec/on raised on behalf of the appellant.
24. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has next relied on Ranjit Singh v.
Municipal Corpora on, Faridabad, 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 105; and Smt.
Shakuntla v. Satbir, 2011 (1) Rent L.R. 211, to contend that the plain/ffs
never acquired occupancy rights. These decisions pertain to situa/ons,
where tenants paid rent exceeding land revenue and thus, did not fulfil the
statutory criteria under Sec/on 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In the
present case, the jamabandis for 1950-51 and 1955-56 clearly reflect rent
less than land revenue. Moreover, the Assistant Collector had already rejec-
ted the landlord's claim of receiving batai from the plain/ffs. These facts
were considered by the Civil Court in its judgment dated 21.04.1987 (Ex.P-
1), wherein it was held, aJer full trial, that the plain/ffs had acquired occu-
pancy rights, which ripened into ownership under the 1952 Act. That de-
cree has a,ained finality. Neither the State nor the appellant has taken any
steps at any stage to assail that decree. The appellant cannot now indirectly
challenge findings which have long since been crystallised.
Page N: 14 of total 16 Pages
14 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
25. On the ques/on of limita/on, reference has been made by Ld.
Counsel for appellant to Anoop Singh v. Bachani Devi, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil)
26; and Rajiv Gupta v. Prashant Garg, 2025 AIR SC 2392. These cases con-
cerned challenges the muta/on orders or sale deeds governed by Ar/cles
58 and 59 of the Limita/on Act. The present case is therefore different. The
plain/ffs were admi,edly dispossessed only on 11.11.1989, as is evident
from Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D-2). The suit was filed immediately thereaJer,
seeking recovery of possession based on their /tle.
26. A suit seeking possession on the basis of ownership is gov-
erned by Ar/cle 65 of the Limita/on Act, which provides a period of 12
years. This posi/on is conclusively se,led in State of Maharashtra v.
Praveen Jethalal Kamda, 2000 (3) SCC 460; and C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai
(2007(14) SCC 183), where the Supreme Court held that where the sub-
stan/ve relief is recovery of possession based on /tle, Ar/cle 65 applies,
and Ar/cle 58 has no applica/on. Further, as held in Gurdev Singh v. State
of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 1, limita/on does not run in favour of a party, who
takes possession under a void and non-est order. The plea of limita/on
raised by the appellant is, thus, wholly without any merit.
27. Viewed in the totality of circumstances, this Court finds that
the surplus-area order of 1961, having been passed without no/ce to the
tenants-in-possession, is void ab ini/o; that no ves/ng ever took place in fa-
vour of the State; that the plain/ffs' /tle stood affirmed by the decree
dated 21.04.1987, which has a,ained finality; that the plain/ffs were dis-
possessed only on 11.11.1989; that the suit filed thereaJer was within lim-
ita/on; and that the civil Court's jurisdic/on to adjudicate upon a void or-
der remains intact. Consequently, none of the authori/es relied upon by
the appellant advances his case, whereas the law cited on behalf of the re-
spondents is fully a,racted to the facts in hand.
Page N: 15 of total 16 Pages
15 of 16
RSA-3307-1998
Conclusion :
28. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No substan/al ques/on of
law arises for considera/on under Sec/on 100 CPC. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merits.
28.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page N: 16 of total 16 Pages
16 of 16
