- (1.) C.M. No. 5572-C of 2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 12 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Collector Agrarian, Gurgaon, the present application is allowed. Delay of 12 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M. No. 5573-C of 2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Collector Agrarian, Gurgaon, the present application is allowed. Delay of 3 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. RSA No. 2301 of 2014 This appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dated 29.11.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, by which the suit preferred by the respondents for declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed, has been allowed.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in interfering with the wellreasoned and detailed judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, wherein it was held that the suit was not maintainable in the light of bar as contained under Section 26 (1) (B) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') and Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as '1953 Act') relying upon the judgment of this Court in Rajmal vs. Garib Dass and others, 1977 PunLJ 383. His further contention is that the declaration, as has been granted by the Lower Appellate Court to the respondents-plaintiffs, is erroneous in law as the Court below has wrongly interpreted the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Chandgi Ram, 1981 PunLJ 494. He contends that once the proceedings have been finalized under the 1953 Act and the land has been declared surplus, which proceedings have attained finality, there is no provision under the 1972 Act to re-open the proceedings finalized under the 1953 Act. He contends that the respondents-plaintiffs have not challenged the said proceedings under the Act especially when the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred and the remedy of appeal and revision has not been availed of by them. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amar Singh vs. Ajmer Singh, 1994 108 PunLR 433. He, thus, contends that the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the finding, as recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court, is in accordance with law especially when the sale in favour of the predecessorin-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs is dated 25.02.1957, which is prior to 30.07.1958, which is the cut off date fixed as per Section 8 of the 1972 Act. He, thus, contends that the said land has been exempted from consideration of the surplus area of a big land owner. Reliance has, thus, been placed upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Chandgi Ram's case . He further contends that although the remedy of appeal and revision has not been availed of by the plaintiffs but the present suit would be maintainable as the impugned mutation No. 1949 dated 12.11.1991 of Tabdeel Milkiyat in favour of the State of Haryana has been sanctioned without issuing any notice to the owner of the property i.e. the big land owner. Even the order of declaring the land surplus dated 14.03.1961 has been passed at the back of the big land owner Smt. Sarbati Devi as also Smt. Punia, who had purchased the suit property on 25.02.1957 and was the owner in possession of the said land. The suit, therefore, has rightly been entertained by the Lower Appellate Court as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondents-plaintiffs and the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissing the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court.;