STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa and SDO (Civil) exercising powers of Prescribed Authority, Allotment Authority, Sirsa have preferred instant appeal feeling dissatisfied against judgment and decree dated November 21, 1984 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby judgment and decree dated August 06, 1983 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa was affirmed vide which order dated June 12, 1980 passed by SDO (Civil) exercising powers of Prescribed Allotment Authority, allotting the land measuring 169 kanals and 15 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Gardarna, Tehsil and District Sirsa as surplus was set aside and respondent -plaintiff was held owner thereof. Through the suit respondent -plaintiff sought following relief: -

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , facts given rise to instant lis are that on appointed day i.e. January 24, 1971, respondent -plaintiff was not a big landlord in accordance with the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, "Act of 1972"), which was promulgated on December 23, 1971. However, subsequent thereto, he purchased land measuring 241 kanals 16 marlas on August 08, 1975 and had sold land measuring 233 kanals and 12 marlas to Billa Ram and others in the year 1974, out of his land earlier owned by him. On the basis of above referred sale mutations were sanctioned on the same day. Case of respondent -plaintiff (Joginder Singh) is that aforesaid transactions of sale was made by him bonafidely and is in a manner of exchange. The prescribed authority has not taken into consideration the land sold by him and treated him as a big landowner by ignoring the above referred sale. On that account, respondent -plaintiff challenged impugned order of Prescribed Authority. The suit was resisted by present appellant/defendant(State of Haryana) before ld. trial court by filing written statement to the effect that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try suit in view of provision contained in Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act 1953 as well as under Section 26 of the Act 1972 as well as that suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC and is also bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. On merits, appellant -defendants pleaded that respondent -plaintiff was a big land owner and all transfers after appointed day have been ignored according to law. Respondent -plaintiff has also not been able to prove that the sale was bonafide. In fact, he was owner of land measuring 444 kanals and 15 marlas and after leaving permissible area of 275 kanals, remaining land measuring 169 kanals and 15 marlas was declared surplus for utilization under the Haryana Utilization Scheme of 1976. Accordingly, appellant -defendant prayed for dismissal of suit. On going through pleadings of parties, following issues were culled out by ld. trial court in order to settle the matter in controversy between the parties.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD.