- (1.) The State of Haryana is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.1984, passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1983 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Karnal was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he was a small land owner and as such, the order of the Collector insofar as land having been declared surplus was illegal and void, and as a consequential relief prayed for restraining the defendant from utilizing the said land. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that he was owner in possession of land measuring 23 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.228 Khatoni No.303, Rectangle No.129 Killa Nos.3,4 and 9 situated in village Vaisor, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. Out of the total holdings, the plaintiff-respondent pleaded that he had sold away land measuring 77 Bighas 14 Biswas to Gaje Singh etc. regarding which mutations were sanctioned on 25.5.1958. After deducting such land from his total holdings, he ceased to be a big land owner. The Authority, under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as '1972 Act') declared 8 standard acres, 3-3/4 units as surplus. It was pleaded that no notice was served on the plaintiff-respondent and no opportunity whatsoever was given to him regarding the calculation of the land owned by him. The Authorities wanted to utilize the disputed land measuring 23 Kanals 8 Marlas and accordingly, he had filed objections unsuccessfully and even the appeal before the Collector, Karnal was dismissed on 28.7.1980.
(3.) The State of Haryana opposed the suit in terms of questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was pleaded in the written statement that consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector on 28.7.1980, it was open for the plaintiff to have availed of his remedies before the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner and he having chosen not to avail of the remedies available under the Act, the suit before the Civil Court was not maintainable. A specific plea regarding the suit being time barred was also raised by stating that the disputed land had already been utilized on 26.5.1978. Furthermore, it was pleaded that as the plaintiff had not filed any statement regarding the transfer of his land as alleged in the suit, the Competent Authority under the Act had rightly declared his land as surplus.;