DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 04,2006

DEVINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. CHITRALEKHA TRIPATHI [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-282] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PANCHAYAT ARON VS. SHANTI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2009-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTISH LAW VS. GENERAL MANAGER METRO RAILWAYS [LAWS(CAL)-2008-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
ST ULAI HIGH SCHOOL VS. DEVENDRAPRASAD JAGANNATH SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2006-12-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
MANGE RAM SON OF RAM KISHAN SAINI BY CASTE, RESIDENT OF MOHALLAH SAINI VAS, ROHTAK VS. TEK RAM SON OF KANIYA SAINI BY CASTE, RESIDENT OF MOHALLAH SAINI VAS, ROHTAK, AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-144] [REFERRED TO]
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-3] [RELIED ON]
BHAGWANTI VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
CHINKO BAI VS. HAMIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-518] [REFERRED]
ATTAR SINGH AND ORS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-534] [REFERRED]
AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. AKOLA GUJRATI SAMAJ [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
SANKAR BURMA VS. DIPAK SONKAR @KHATIK & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
ABHINAV MANAV VIKAS SANSTHA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA DEVI VS. SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA DEVI VS. SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellants.
(2.)Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows: Appellants filed suit for declaration on 7.9.1991 to the effect that they are the owners in possession of 1/2 share of the land measuring 155 kanals 4 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated in village Kairanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa and the order of allotment and declaration of surplus area so far as the said land is concerned are ineffective, inoperative and against the principles of natural justice, null and void and as such not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sirsa in Civil Suit No.1054 of 1989. Respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was assigned to learned Additional District Judge who by his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1997 set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. A second appeal was carried before the High Court which by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal holding that since Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short the Act) provides that no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of the contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under the Act, or settle any matter which under the Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority; the suit was not maintainable.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first Appellate Court and the High Court were not justified in their conclusion.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.