KALU Vs. TARLOKI NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of S.A.O. No. 17 and Civil Revision Petition No. 1949 of 1982 as they arise out of the same judgment of the lower appellate Court, dated March 3, 1982, whereby the order of the trial Court dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision on merits.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs -Respondents filed the suit for declaration and possession on the allegations that the Plaintiffs and one Vinod Kumar were the sons of Prem Nath. The said Prem Nath was a big landowner. After leaving 30 standard acres as the reserve area, the remaining land was declared surplus. On appeal, the case was remanded and ultimately, - -vide order, dated May 3, 1978, Exhibit D. 1, the Special Collector allowed 20 standard acres, as the permissible area in the hands of Prem Nath and declared the remaining land as surplus. During all the period the land was declared surplus, the same was not utilised and remained in possession of his heirs. By way of a family settlement, the Plaintiffs got the land described in paragraph 6 of the plaint and the decree of the Civil Court dated June 13, 1958, was passed to that effect. Since then, they were the owners thereof. The said family settlement was not given effect to while declaring the surplus area in the hands of Prem Nath who died on June 3, 1976. The land declared as surplus could not be utilised by the State especially the land which they had got by virtue of the civil Court decree, dated, June 13, 1958. Hence the present suit for the grant of the declaration to the effect that the order of allotment dated, July, 31, 1978, Exhibit P. 13 and the certificate of allotment dated August 8, 1978 Exhibit P -15 were illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction, and for possession of the suit land. The suit was contested by the Defendants inter alia on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred to entertain the suit. The land having been declared surplus, it had vested in the State Government and that the Plaintiffs had nothing to do with the same. Consequently, the trial Court framed the preliminary issue to the effect as to whether the civil Court had the jurisdiction to hear this suit? It came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act), all the rights of all persons in the land declared surplus had vested in the State and, therefore, it was apparent that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit was barred under Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. As a result, the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that all the transfers of land made prior to July 30, 1958, were legal and valid and had to be given effect to and that the suit land would not vest in the State Government under the Act. Thus, according to the lower appellate Court, the Collector had no right to utilise the land under the scheme for the utilisation of the surplus land by allotting the same to Defendant No. 3, i.e., Kalu, Defendant -Appellant. Consequently, the findings of the trial Court were reversed under the said preliminary issue and the case was remanded for fresh decision on merits. Dissatisfied with the same, Kalu, Defendant -Appellant has filed this appeal whereas the State of Haryana has filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1949 of 1982.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant orders passed by the authorities under the Act.