STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed this suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector dated January 31, 1962 declaring 87.14 acres as surplus area and 138.31 acres as tenant's permissible area in the hands of Gobind Parshad, their father, was void and inoperative and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from utilising the said land under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the Haryana Act). The material allegations made in the plaint were that the respondents and their father Govind Parshad constituted a joint Hindu family and owned 500 acres of agricultural land situate at village Fatehpuria, district Sirsa prior to April 15, 1953, the date on which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) was enforced. In the year 1953 itself Gobind Parshad by way of family settlement transferred 170 acres of land in the name of his wife. Thereafter, family partition took place some time in the year 1954 whereby 3/5th of the remaining land fell to the share of Vinod Kumar, Rattan Lal and Om Parkash, respondents, whereas 2/5th was kept by Gobind Parshad and his 4th son Anil Kumar. Goind Parshad died on April 14, 1976 and the land held by him was mutated in the name of his son Anil Kumar and his widow.

(2.) The said order of the Collector was sought to be challenged mainly on two grounds that in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs were recorded owners of the land to the extent stated above, no notice was served upon them by the Collector before declaration of the surplus area and the tenant's permissible area and that the land measuring 432 bighas, 14 biswas out of the total holdings was banjar qadim, Banjar jadid and ghair mumkin and as such being not "land", as defined in the Punjab Act could not be counted towards the total holdings of the landowners.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants and one of the defences raised with which we are only concerned in this reference was that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was barred by virtue of the provisions of S.26 of the Haryana Act. However, in the question framed reference has been made to the provisions of S.25 of the Punjab Act which admittedly is the relevant provision governing the present suit. The trial Court upheld the pleas of the State and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court which led to the filing of this regular second appeal by the State.