Rai Singh vs State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J.—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.

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.

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.

It is not even disputed before me that he plaintiff-appellant had availed of I all the remedies available to him before the Collector and the Commissioner and I having lost in all these proceedings has filed the present suit. The learned Courts below applying the doctrine of election held that as the appellant had opted for the remedies under the Act and exhausted them in accordance with law, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred. In other words, till date all orders passed by the authorities and the Courts have been passed against the appellant. Learned Counsel has not been able to show to the Court as to how the provisions of aforestated sections have not been correctly interpreted and applied to the facts of the present case. The land was rightly declared surplus by the authorities concerned and the successor-in-interest of Har Lai cannot claim any better right than the right possessed by him. Reference to the following conclusion of the learned first appellate Court would be apt at this stage.

".... It is an admitted fact that Har Lai died after suffering of decree Ex.P.4 in favour of the plaintiff in June, 1975 as the decree Ex.P.4 was suffered on 7.8.1974. As such admittedly Har Lal did not have any right title or interest whatsoever, in the suit land when he died and when he did not have any right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit land when there could not be any pre-existing right of the legal heirs if any of the deceased Har Lal. This point can also be highlighted from another angle i.e. if suppose Har Lal would not have died then Jaswant Singh alleged LR of Har Lal would not have in a position to claim any pre-existing right in the suit land when Har Lal had left with no right title, interest in the suit and after passing of decree Ex. P.4 in favour of the plaintiff, then no benefit can be given to the plaintiff on this ground and the prescribed Authority rightly ignored the decree dated 4.8.1975 Ex. P.8 suffered by the plaintiff to escape from the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. . . ."

I concur with the findings arrived at by the learned courts below in law and facts and I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent judgments in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.