SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated August 20, 1992, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Sahib Ram, grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant, transferred the land in dispute measuring 171 Kanals 17 Marias to the plaintiff (who was minor at that time), through a Civil Court decree dated April 26, 1971. As the said transfer in his favour was after the appointed date, i.e., January 24, 1971, fixed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'), the Collector Surplus Area vide order dated August 8, 1980 ignored the transfer and related Sahib Ram as the owner of the land in dispute. On the appeal filed by Sahib Ram, the Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector Surplus Area for a fresh decision with a direction that Sahib Ram was entitled to the two units. The Collector vide order dated March 25, 1985, while deciding the case on remand, allowed Sahib Ram as area of 864 Kanals in 'C' category as his permissible area, including the land in dispute, which had been transferred to the plaintiff-appellant vide Civil Court decree dated April 26,1971. Sandeep Kumar was minor, his father Ranbir Singh, while filing his declaration separately from his father Sahib Ram, included the land in dispute in the area held by him and his family members. The Collector vide order dated June 29, 1981 declared the land in dispute as the surplus area under him. Thus, there were two self-contradictory orders passed by the authorities. Vide order dated March 25, 1985 passed in the case State v. Sahib Ram the land in dispute was declared as permissible area of Sahib Ram. In contradiction to that, vide order dated June 29, 1981 passed in the case State v. Ranbir Singh the same land was declared as surplus area of Ranbir Singh. Thus, the land transferred to the appellant by his grandfather Sahib Ram had been counted twice - one as Sahib Ram's holding and again as Ranbir Singh's holding. The appellant applied to the Prescribed Authority for rectification of the mistake. The prescribed Authority vide report dated April 11, 1986 recommended to the Collector, Sirsa, that the case be sent to the Financial Commissioner for taking suo moto action under Section 18(6) of the Act. The Collector allegedly rejected the recommendation made by the Prescribed Authority with an observation that the plaintiff-appellant himself should approach the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Act.

(3.) In order to challenge the order dated June 29, 1981, passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby the land in dispute was declared as surplus in the holding of Ranbir Singh, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (State) from interfering into his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. The trial Court granted the prayer made by the plaintiff and decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree date August 20, 1992 reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sandeep Kumar has filed the present appeal.