RAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment argued that the learned courts below have erred in applying the provisions of Sections 4(6), 9, read with Rules 14 and Section 11(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to the facts of the present case and further they have erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in its right perspective resulting in perverse approach. Consequently, according the learned counsel, the judgments and decree of the learned courts below are liable to be set aside.

(2.) A suit for declaration was filed by the appellant claiming that he was a small land owner on the appointed date of 54 kanals 9 marlas and the orders of the Collector and that of the Commissioner dated 17th October, 1980 and 3rd February, 1983 respectively declaring the land of the appellant surplus are illegal and void under the provisions of the said Act.

(3.) Learned Courts below came to the concurrent findings of fact that the orders of the authorities concerned were fully in conformity with the provisions of law. A suit was filed by Jaswant Singh earlier in the year 1974 according to which he became the owner in possession of 123 kanals 15 marlas and the plaintiff remained owner of 136 kanals16 marlas as the total holding was 215 kanals 11 marlas, challenging the order of the prescribed authority dated 27.8.1979, the suit was filed.