MANGE RAM Vs. DHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Court whereby the plaintiff-respondents were granted the declaration that the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring the suit land as surplus and allotting the same to defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (the appellants) was null and void.

(2.) The FACTS :

(3.) It is not disputed that the father of the plaintiffs was an old tenant on the disputed land and it was declared surplus by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act. It is also not disputed that no notice was issued to the' plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest before declaring the suit land surplus. Section 11(3) of the Act enjoins a duty upon the prescribed authority to issue notice to the persons likely to be prejudicially affected by the order determining the surplus area of the landowner. The plaintiffs being the old tenants had a valuable right to urge that the disputed land be not declared as surplus since it formed part of the tenant's permissible area or that they had a prior right for allotment of the land under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme. The prescribed authority having infringed the statutory provisions, the orders passed by it are null and void. The conclusions arrived by the first appellate Court are unexceptional.