- (1.) Present regular second appeal, filed by State of Haryana, against concurrent findings of facts having been recorded by both the Courts below in suit for declaration.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance. Relevant facts of the case as set up by the plaintiff that he filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 30 kanals 4 marlas comprising khasra No. 9//15/3, 10/11, 12 & 19 as per jamabandi for the year 1985-86 situated within the revenue estate of village Buria Jagir. As per plaintiff, he had purchased land measuring 30 kanals 4 marlas on the basis of two different sale deeds dated 19.2.1981 & 11.5.1981, respectively from Rattan Anmol Singh son of Lachhman Singh, resident of Buria Jagir. Mutation Nos. 423 & 424, on the basis of above said sale deeds, have already been sanctioned. Since then plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land. He also raised construction on the suit property and installed a tubewell, which is being operated by electric motor. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was spent on the construction raised on the land in dispute. More so, plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land. Subsequently, he came to know that the State Government had been recorded as owner of the suit land and that suit land has been mutated in the name of State of Haryana vide mutation No. 611 dated 27.7.1989. Neither any notice was issued to the plaintiff by the authorities at any point of time nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him despite the fact that mutation Nos. 423 & 424 were duly sanctioned in his favour. At the time of purchase of the suit property, vendor Rattan Anmol Singh had assured that land was not included in the surplus area nor his ownership was adversely effected by enactment of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1971. More so, successors of the vendor had already made statement before the appropriate authority to the effect that the area, which was sold after 24.1.1971, was sold out of permissible area and in case the land sold by them is found to be in excess of their permissible area, then khasra Nos. 22//12, 13, 18/1, 19/1, 29//20 & 29 situated at village Buria Jagir be included in the permissible area. That way, suit land measuring 30 kanals 4 marlas, which was purchased by the plaintiff, was within the permissible area of the original land owner. The deficiency, if any, was to be made good from the remaining area still in possession of the successors of the vendor. Since plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property, defendants have no right to interfere into his peaceful possession over the suit land.
(3.) Defendants contested the suit inter alia taking the plea that State is not bound by any sale made by Rattan Anmol Singh in favour of the plaintiff. The land has already been declared surplus and vested in the State Government. Mutation No. 611 dated 27.7.1989 has rightly been sanctioned. However, the fact was admitted that successors of Rattan Anmol Singh had made statement before Special Collector that the land sold after 24.10.1971 may be treated as permissible area. Defendants also admitted the fact that plaintiff had raised construction over some part of the suit land and installed tubewell therein. However, defendants took the plea that State is not bound by any construction raised by the plaintiff over the suit land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.;