SUNDER DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge Karnal dated August 19, 1967, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for declaration and possession was dismissed.

(2.) Admittedly, the plaintiff appellants are the owners of the land in suit. On November 10, 1963, a notice Exhibit P. 1, is purported to have been issued by the Collector, district Karnal, on the plaintiff under Section 3 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the plea that the plaintiffs had not cultivated the suit land for the last six harvests. Under the circumstances, they were required to show cause within 30 days of the notice as to why the land could not be cultivated and in case the explanation was found unsatisfactory, the Collector will take possession of the land. As the plaintiffs did not offer any explanation in pursuance of this notice, the Collector acquired the land under the provisions of the Act and leased out the same in different parcels to the defendant Nos. 2 to 13, now respondents Nos. 2 to 13 in the present appeal, according to the entries in the Roznamcha of the Patwari Exhibit P. 8. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit on May 16, 1964 for declaration and possession with a prayer that notice Exhibit P. 1 had not been served on them and, therefore the order of the Collector acquiring the land and leasing out the same to the respondents were without jurisdiction and the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. The suit was contested both by the State of Haryana and some of the lessee-respondents inasmuch as written statements were filed by them. Defendant Nos. 2, 5, 6, 9 and 11 to 13 did not put in appearance in spite of service and were proceeded against ex parte. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) It was held by the trial Court that the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter, that notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, had been served and that the notice Exhibit P. 1 had not been legally served. However, it was held that the suit was time-barred and as such the same was dismissed. In appeal it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the notice though not served in accordance with law, did not suffer from any illegality so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Collector to acquire the land of the plaintiffs. It was further held that the suit was not within time. Thus, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was upheld.