Mange Ram vs Dhan Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Court whereby the plaintiffrespondents were granted the declaration that the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring the suit land as surplus and allotting the same to defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (the appellants) was null and void.

The FACTS : Plaintiff Nos. : 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal) challenge& the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring the suit land as surplus and allotting the same to defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (the appellants) on the ground that the suit land belonged to Smt. Imarti Bai and others, who were big landowners and the plaintiffs were tenants on the suit land prior to April 15, 1953 and the suit land formed part of the permissible area of the tenants and that the land was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority without notice to the plaintiffs. The order declaring the suit land surplus was void since it had been passed at the back of the plaintiffs. Similarly, the order of allotment was also rendered illegal. The suit was contested by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the State of Haryana and the Collector, Bhiwani. They maintained that the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring that suit land was surplus and the allotment in favour of the defendantappellants was valid. The Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence, documentary and oral, came to the conclusion that the father of the plaintiff was recorded as a tenant under the landowners in the record of rights upto Rabi 1977. After the death of Banwari, the plaintiffs entered into possession as tenants and they were recorded as such in the record of rights. The suit land was declared surplus by an order dated March 8, 1979 and the Prescribed Authority did not issue them any notice as enjoined by Section 11(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) before declaring it to be surplus. The first appellate Court also found that Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order of the Tribunal of special jurisdiction if it is passed in breach of the provisions of the statute under which the Tribunal was constituted.

It is not disputed that the father of the plaintiffs was an old tenant on the disputed land and it was declared surplus by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act. It is also not disputed that no notice was issued to the'' plaintiffs or their predecessorsininterest before declaring the suit land surplus. Section 11(3) of the Act enjoins a duty upon the prescribed authority to issue notice to the persons likely to be prejudicially affected by the order determining the surplus area of the landowner. The plaintiffs being the old tenants had a valuable right to urge that the disputed land be not declared as surplus since it formed part of the tenant''s permissible area or that they had a prior right for allotment of the land under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme. The prescribed authority having infringed the statutory provisions, the orders passed by it are null and void. The conclusions arrived by the first appellate Court are unexceptional.

For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.