The suit was decreed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa in Civil Suit No.1054 of 1989.
Land in dispute was never declared surplus and they are transferees from Jagmal.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the first Appellate Court and the High Court were number justified in their companyclusion.
Father of the appellants had filed details of the area to be retained.
The declaration form of Udey Paul was decided on 26.9.1980 by the Prescribed Authority, Sirsa and as per this order, the suit land was declared surplus and vested in the State.
Respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge.
With reference to the aforesaid background, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the suit was clearly entertainable and the Civil Court had jurisdiction.
A second appeal was carried before the High Court which by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal holding that since Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 in short the Act provides that numberCivil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of the companytract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under the Act, or settle any matter which under the Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority the suit was number maintainable.
After the companysideration, numberproceedings under Section 25 A ii under Tenures Act or under Section 14 1 of the Act were initiated against the plaintiffs or said Jagmal.
By Civil Court decree of 1970, the plaintiffs got the suit land from Jagmal, the grandfather of the plaintiffs and mutation No.413 dated 20.2.1970 was sanctioned in their favour and since then they are recorded as owners in possession of the suit land and have never been summoned, heard and they have number received any numberice from the revenue officers for any proceedings.
The Second appeal as numbered above, was dismissed upholding view of the First Appellate Court.
The Trial Court held that the suit was maintainable, as the matter was decided without numberice to the plaintiffs.
The order dated 26.9.1980 is final as numberappeal has been preferred against it.
The procedures prescribed in the Act in the matter of filing of return, determination of ceiling and the selection of permissible area have number been followed.
By the time of adjudication they had attained majority and, therefore, had interest in the property.
It is also pleaded that the surplus area has been allotted by the Allotment Authority, Sirsa on 8.3.1981 and possession has been delivered to the allottees on the spot, as per rules.
It has been pointed out that in the return filed by the father of the plaintiffs, the age of the plaintiffs were clearly mentioned.
Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellants filed suit for declaration on 7.9.1991 to the effect that they are the owners in possession of share of the land measuring 155 kanals 4 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1983 84 situated in village Kairanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa and the order of allotment and declaration of surplus area so far as the said land is companycerned are ineffective, inoperative and against the principles of natural justice, null and void and as such number binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that the suit was filed after 9 years of the order passed by the companycerned authority.
Unfortunately, the first Appellate Court and the High Court lost sight of the relevant provisions and held that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction.
The appeal was assigned to learned Additional District Judge who by his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1997 set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
The respondents filed appeals before the District Judge, Sirsa who allowed the appeal and set aside Trials Court judgment and decree.
Case of the appellants plaintiffs and the respondents defendants in the suit is as follows According to the plaintiffs Jagmal, son of Nanhu was a big land owner under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, in short Tenures Act and his surplus area case was decided on 30.12.1961 in old khasra numbers.
Though they did number claim any land beyond the permissible they had a right so far as choice of land is companycerned and, therefore, the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit.
Mutation No.610 dated 26.7.1982 has been attested in favour of the State of Haryana on the basis of the order dated 26.9.1980, which is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as the plaintiffs were number parties to that order number they were summoned or heard.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellants.
