L.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) MOHINDER Singh - one of the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS in the suit challenged order dated 28.02.1994 passed by Collector, Sirsa, as modified vide order dated 29.11.2000 thereby declaring suit land measuring 109 kanals 09 marlas to be surplus in the hands of Surinder Singh - big land owner (since deceased and represented by defendants No. 4 to 6). Case of the plaintiffs is that Jarnail Singh - predecessor of the plaintiffs was in cultivating possession of 269 kanals 04 marlas land including the suit land measuring 109 kanals 09 marlas as tenant since before the consolidation of holdings. Jarnail Singh died leaving behind four sons namely Sohan Singh - plaintiff No. 1 (since deceased and represented by appellant and proforma respondents No. 7 to 9), Karam Singh - plaintiff No. 2 (proforma respondent No. 10), Mohan Singh (since deceased and represented by plaintiffs No. 3 and 4/proforma respondents No. 11 and 12) and Joginder Singh (since deceased and represented by plaintiffs No. 5 to 7 i.e. proforma respondents No. 13 to 15). They continued as tenants in possession of the suit land. The suit land was allotted to Surinder Singh (predecessor of defendants No. 4 to 6) in the year 1968 by Custodian Department, who became owner of the suit land. Surinder Singh died on 11.06.1982 and was inherited by defendants No. 4 to 6. However, Jarnail Singh continued to cultivate the suit land as tenants. No part of the suit land was declared surplus either under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short - the Tenures Act) or under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short - the Ceiling Act) in the hands of Surinder Singh during his life time or even in the hands of defendants No. 4 to 6 till the suit land was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs by defendants No. 4 to 6 vide Civil Court decree dated 16.12.1989 by way of exchange. Consequently, plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, but the same has been declared as the surplus area in the hands of defendants No. 4 to 6 vide impugned order dated 28.02.1994 passed by defendant No. 3 Collector, as modified vide order dated 29.11.2000. The said orders are null and void and without jurisdiction being in violation of the Tenures Act and rules framed therein and also in violation of principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiffs before passing of said order. Plaintiffs are bona fide transferees of suit land from defendants No. 4 to 6. The plaintiffs had no knowledge of the pendency of surplus proceedings or the decision thereof. On inquiry, they had learnt that the suit land has not been declared surplus and no surplus area case was pending. Making these averments, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land i.e. plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 to the extent of 1/4th share each, plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 to the extent of 1/4th share and plaintiffs No. 5 to 7 to the extent of 1/4th share and the impugned order dated 28.02.1994 and 29.11.2000 are null and void etc. Permanent injunction was also claimed.
(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 4 to 6 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 to 6 contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that Surinder Singh, who was big land owner, died without filing the declaration under the Tenures Act. Accordingly, after his death, Tehsildar, Sirsa filled up the declaration and forwarded it to the prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Prescribed Authority passed order dated 23.10.1988 under the surplus proceedings. However, on appeal preferred by tenant Harbans Singh, said order dated 23.10.1988 was set aside vide appellate order dated 07.03.1990 and the case was remanded to Special Collector for fresh decision. Thereafter, suit land was declared surplus vide impugned order dated 28.02.1994. In appeal preferred by defendants No. 4 to 6, Commissioner, vide order dated 13.01.1995, remanded the case to Special Collector, who again decided the case vide order dated 28.11.1996. However, on account of some ambiguity found in the list of area supplied by tenant, Special Collector issued revised Form 'F' vide order dated 29.11.2000. Various other pleas were also raised.;