STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and the Allotment/prescribed Authority against the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1992 of the District Judge, Sirsa, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Dabwali, decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent Paramjit Kaur declaring her to be the owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of l/4th share.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Paramjit Kaur plaintiff who was minor at the relevant time, filed a suit through her guardian Gurtej Singh whose interest was not adverse to that of the plaintiff, on the grounds that after the death of her father Kulwant Singh in the year 1978 who was owner of 456 Kanals 9 Marias of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Jogewala, Tehsil Dabwali, she inherited the suit land to the extent of l/4th share and Mutation No. 1882 dated January 1, 1980 was sanctioned in her favour. The plaintiff also assailed the finding of the Allotment/prescribed Authority vide which the defendant-appellants separated the land Under Section 14 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and allotted the same to different persons in State v. larnail Singh, Jasmail Singh, Jaila Singh, Bachittar Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Ram Chander's case, specifically asserting that the land in dispute to the extent of l/4th share belonged to her. She prayed therein that the Allotment Order, dated February 26, 1985 whereby the land was partitioned and allotted to different persons be declared null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, she being a minor and recorded owner on the date of passing of the Allotment Order, i. e. February 26, 1985 and that the notice which was sine qua non for affording an opportunity of hearing was not served upon the plaintiff before passing the said order.

(3.) BY way of Replication, averments contained in the plaint were reiterated and those contained in the written statement were denied.