K. Kannan, J. - (1.) BOTH the cases are connected and they raise common questions of law whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to reopen the matters concluded under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972.
(2.) BOTH the appeals arise out of two suits independently filed, one at the instance of Tek Ram in Civil Suit No.266 of 1980 and another at the instance of Maya Ram in Civil Suit No.26 of 1980 and later renumbered as 662 of 1982. Tek Ram's suit was dismissed on 07.06.1982 and Maya Ram's suit was originally decreed holding the order of the Commissioner, Ambala, to be invalid. The appeal by the State of Haryana against the decree in Civil Suit No.662 of 1982 filed by Maya Ram was heard in Civil Appeal No.286 of 1982 and it was allowed holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by Tek Ram to the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.88 of 1982 was dismissed. Both these appeals are the subject matter of the second appeals. The source of title is the same and the facts narrated are the same. From the reading of the plaint, it is seen that one Brij Bhan was a big landlord and one Sukh Ram was a small landowner. Both these persons were the owners of the land comprised in Rect. No.27 and Rect. No.29 measuring 96 kanals 7 marlas. The shares of the above two persons were 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively in the aforesaid land. Both these owners sold the land by means of a sale deed dated 16/17,11.02.1955 to one Rattan Singh and his brother's son, Jhabddoo. These sales were the subject of challenge in the preemption suits filed by Maya Ram and Jhabddoo. They ended with a compromise providing 5/6th share to Maya Ram and 1/6th share to Jhabddoo on 27.06.1957 and mutation had also been sanctioned. Pursuant to the decree, partition proceedings predicated specific extents, namely, 80 kanals 8 marlas equivalent to 10 standard acre in Rect. No.28 to Maya Ram and Jhabddoo got 16 kanals. In the meanwhile, the Agrarian Collector by his order dated 03.08.1960 declared 2/3rd of the land compromised in Rect. No.28 as surplus area ordering an extent measuring 16 kanals 13 marlas equivalent to 1 standard acre and 13 1/4 units falling within surplus, without any option or intimation given to Maya Ram. The contention was that the original landowner Brij Bhan merely had 2/3rd share in the land availing to him an extent measuring 80 kanals 8 marlas and the remaining 1/3rd share belonged to Sukh Ram, the small landowner. While giving benefit of 10 standard acres to Maya Ram under Government instructions, the competent authority should have based his calculation on the land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas and should have left out of consideration the land measuring 26 kanals 16 marlas that was claimed by Maya Ram from Sukh Ram, who was a small landowner. Since Maya Ram's holdings itself did not exceed to 10 standard acres, no part of the extent held in his hand, could have been declared as surplus.
(3.) THE basis of contention for the plaintiff seeking for exclusion of the property held by him was also that under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 excluded all transfers of land before 30.07.1958. Since Maya Ram's acquisition was prior to the date he was entitled to obtain exemption. The vesting of the property provided under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 did not make possible any vesting in favour of the State for properties alienated before 30.07.1958. The suit was filed at a time when the 2nd defendant as an allottee from the Government sought to disturb the plaintiff's possession.;