RSA-3307-1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-3307-1998

Harpat (deceased through LRs) ...Appellants

Versus

Boota Singh and others ...Respondents

Reserved on 20.11.2025

Date of decision: 28.11.2025

Uploaded on 28.11.2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate

for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defend-

ant No.4 – the allo,ee Harpat Singh, assailing the concurrent findings re-

corded by the Courts below, whereby the suit ins/tuted by the plain/ffs –

Boota Singh and the legal representa/ves of Karam Singh (respondents N: 1

to 3 herein), seeking declara/on of ownership and recovery of possession

of suit land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Gidder Khera, District

Sirsa, was decreed by the trial Court on 24.09.1994 and affirmed by the

First Appellate Court on 23.10.1998.

Page N: 1 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

2.  For convenience , the par/es shall be referred to by their posi-

/ons before the Trial Court. The trial Court record has been requisi/oned

and examined.

3.  Background Facts: Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that

the surplus-area case of landowner Inder Singh R/o village Ganga was de-

cided by the Collector, Surplus Area, vide order dated 27.09.1961 (Ex.P-9).

The suit land measuring 24 kanals, situated in the revenue estate of village

Gidder Kheda, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, and fully described in the head-

note of the plaint, was included in the surplus pool of Inder Singh. At the

relevant /me, Boota Singh (plain/ff No.1) and Karam Singh (predecessor-in-

interest of plain/ffs No.2 and 3) stood recorded as tenants in cul/va/ng

possession of the suit land. Subsequently, the suit land along with other

parcels was allo,ed to defendant No.4 Harpat Singh (appellant herein) vide

allotment le,er dated 29.09.1989 (Ex.P-10), and pursuant thereto, posses-

sion was delivered to him vide Rapat Roznamcha No.86 dated 11.11.1989

(Ex.D-1).

4.1 i)r,tal3bNi)-r ,tp3Nh NIn this background, the plain/ffs ins/-

tuted the present suit in November 1989, asser/ng that they and their pre-

decessors had been in cul/va/ng possession of the suit land for two gener-

a/ons. According to them, their forefathers were occupancy tenants under

the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and upon the enactment of the Punjab Oc-

cupancy Tenants (Ves/ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951, they became

owners because they never paid rent to the proprietor and only paid a

nominal cash amount less than the land revenue. It was pleaded that while

declaring the surplus area of Inder Singh in 1961, the Collector, Surplus

Area, did not serve any no/ce upon them, despite their possession as ten-

ants. Therefore, the order dated 27.09.1961 was asserted to be null, void,

without jurisdic/on, and inopera/ve qua their rights.

Page N: 2 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

4.2  The plain/ffs further pleaded that they had earlier ins/tuted a

separate suit in 1983 seeking a declara/on of ownership in respect of the

very same land against Inder Singh and others. That suit was decreed on

21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1), whereby they (plain/ffs) were declared owners in pos-

session. Consequently, at the /me when the allotment order dated

29.09.1989 (Ex.P-10) was passed, Inder Singh no longer had any subsis/ng

right in the suit land. The plain/ffs alleged that on the strength of the afore-

said allotment, their possession was forcibly taken and so, the Rapat Roz-

namcha dated 11.11.1989 (Ex.D-1) was illegal, void, and without jurisdic-

/on.

4.3 On these averments, the plain/ffs prayed for a decree declar-

ing them to be owners in possession of the suit land, and en/tled to restor-

a/on of possession.

5. JNS98 7B JNSNP D1NY70COPT arPBP98S9NT p7t( S98 de H The State

Authori/es contested the suit by raising preliminary objec/ons and sub-

miHng that the plain/ffs or their predecessors were merely tenants on

FO9OEPJHOE and had never acquired ownership. It was asserted that the sur-

plus declara/on dated 27.09.1961 was legal and valid, having been passed

strictly in accordance with law. It was further contended that plain/ff No.1

was already owner in possession of land measuring 146 kanals 6 marlas in

Khewat No.59, and plain/ffs No.2 and 3 were owners in possession of land

measuring 215 kanals 13 marlas in Khewat Nos.59 and 60 of village Ganga,

thus, rendering them ineligible for allotment of any land under surplus-area

schemes. The allotment order dated 29.09.1989 was defended as lawful

and valid. Other averments of the plaint were denied, and dismissal of the

suit was sought.

Page N: 3 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

6.  Defendant No.3, having no direct concern with the dispute,

chose not to contest the suit and was accordingly proceeded against ex

parte.

7. Stand of Defendant No.4 (Allo#ee-Appellant) : Defendant

No.4 – Harpat Singh, the allo,ee, filed a separate wri,en statement adopt-

ing in substance the stand taken by the State Authori/es. He asserted that

the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961 was valid; that the allotment order

dated 29.09.1989 and delivery of possession on 11.11.1989 were lawful;

and that he had become owner in possession pursuant to a valid allotment

by competent authori/es. He too prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8.1 Findings of the Courts Below : The learned Trial Court, aJer

examining the evidence, held that the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961

was not binding upon the plain/ffs. It found that the plain/ffs were recor-

ded tenants in possession of the suit land at the relevant /me and no no-

/ce had been served upon them during the surplus proceedings, rendering

the said order void and without jurisdic/on. The Court further observed

that in view of the judgment dated 21.04.1987 passed in Civil Suit No.31 of

1983, the plain/ffs had already been declared owners in possession of the

suit land. Consequently, the subsequent allotment order dated 29.09.1989,

which was also passed without no/ce to the plain/ffs, was equally liable to

be declared null and void.

8.2 The Trial Court accordingly declared the surplus-area order

dated 27.09.1961, the allotment order dated 29.09.1989, and Rapat Roz-

namcha No.86 dated 11.11.1989 as illegal, void and inopera/ve against the

rights of the plain/ffs. It also held that the civil Court possessed the jurisdic-

/on to adjudicate such ma,ers, since the impugned orders suffered from

lack of jurisdic/on. Declaring the plain/ffs to be owners of the suit land, the

Page N: 4 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

Court further held that, having been dispossessed during the pendency of

the suit, they were en/tled to recovery of possession.

9. The judgment and decree dated 24.09.1994 passed by the Trial

Court as challenged by defendant No.4–Harpat Singh (the allo,ee), but the

First Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the en/re record, concurred with

all findings of the Trial Court and dismissed his appeal vide judgment dated

23.10.1998.

10.1 u79NP9O79T 7B NYP DooPGGS9NH Assailing the concurrent findings

of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant–defendant No.4 (the

allo,ee) contends that the plain/ffs had nowhere pleaded, when they first

acquired knowledge of the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961. It is ar-

gued that neither Inder Singh, the big landowner, nor the plain/ffs ever

challenged the said 1961 order prior to the filing of the present suit. Ac-

cording to the appellant, once the surplus order remained unchallenged for

nearly three decades, the suit ins/tuted in 1989 was hopelessly barred by

limita/on.

10.2 Learned counsel further submits that when the plain/ffs filed

Civil Suit No.31 of 1983 seeking declara/on of ownership, they impleaded

only Inder Singh and other private individuals, but not the State Authori/es.

By virtue of the surplus declara/on dated 27.09.1961, the suit land was

already vested in the State under the provisions of the Punjab Security of

Land Tenure Act read with Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land

Holdings Act, 1972. Consequently, the State had become the full-fledged

owner, and any decree obtained against Inder Singh alone could not bind

the State. On this premise, it is argued that the judgment dated 21.04.1987

(Ex.P-1) did not confer any rights upon the plain/ffs vis-à-vis the State or its

allo,ee.

Page N: 5 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

10.3 It is also the conten/on of learned counsel that the judgment

of 1987 was procured by the plain/ffs in collusion with Inder Singh, who

having lost /tle in 1961, had no subsis/ng interest in the suit land. There-

fore, the 1987 decree, being collusive and obtained against a person who

had no /tle, was not binding upon any of the defendants in the present

proceedings.

10.4 Ld. Counsel for the appellant addi/onally argues that no no/ce

was required to be served either upon the owner or upon the allo,ee at

the stage of declaring the land surplus. He further relies upon the

jamabandi entries from 1955 onwards to contend that the plain/ffs were

recorded merely as tenants on 1/3rd batai, thereby nega/ng their claim of

being occupancy tenants under Inder Singh. It is submi,ed that the plea of

occupancy tenancy is a self-serving fabrica/on.

10.5 Ld. Counsel for appellant also asserts that the jurisdic/on of

the civil Court was expressly barred in ma,ers rela/ng to surplus-area de-

cisions and allotments made thereunder. On these grounds, as well as the

plea that the 1989 suit amounted to an impermissible challenge to the sur-

plus order of 1961 aJer an inordinate delay, learned counsel prays that the

judgments and decrees of both Courts below be set aside and the suit of

the plain/ffs be dismissed.

11.1  u79NP9O79T 7B gPTo798P9NT L EGSC9OUT H Refu/ng the submis-

sions advanced on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel appearing for

respondents No.1 to 3 (plain/ffs) contends that the judgment dated

21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1) conclusively declared the plain/ffs to be owners in pos-

session of the suit land aJer a full-fledged trial in Civil Suit No.31 of 1983.

The said suit had been ins/tuted in 1983 and was decided aJer leading ex-

haus/ve oral and documentary evidence. It is argued that the decree was

not collusive, as alleged by the appellant, and significantly, neither the

Page N: 6 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

State nor the present appellant ever sought to challenge or set aside that

decree by filing any counterclaim or separate proceedings, even when they

had the opportunity to do so in the present suit.

11.2 Learned counsel further submits that, even assuming for the

sake of argument (though not admiHng) that the plain/ffs were not occu-

pancy tenants, the revenue record demonstrates that they were at least

tenants in cul/va/ng possession since 1950–51. As such, they were man-

datorily en/tled to no/ce before the land could be declared surplus. The

surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961, passed without issuing no/ce to the

tenants in possession, was in direct viola/on of Rule 6 of the Punjab Secur-

ity of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, and was therefore void ab ini/o.

11.3 It is argued that ves/ng of surplus land in the State under Sec-

/on 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 applies only to

validly declared surplus land. Where the founda/onal surplus-area order it-

self is void for the want of mandatory no/ce to tenants, no /tle could vest

in the State, and consequently the State had no authority to allot the land

to defendant No.4. Reliance is placed on the jamabandi for the year 1950-

51, wherein the plain/ffs are recorded as tenants on fixed rent less than

the land revenue, an indicator of occupancy rights under Sec/ons 5 and 8

of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Ld. Counsel submits that it was only aJer con-

solida/on that entries were altered to reflect 1/3rd batai, and even this

change was made without no/ce to the plain/ffs. This factual posi/on was

considered by the Civil Court in 1987 while holding that the plain/ffs had

acquired occupancy rights, which ripened into ownership.

11.4 It is thus urged that, even if the Court were to hold that the

plain/ffs had not acquired ownership under the 1952 Act, their long-stand-

ing status as tenants in possession since 1950-51 en/tled them to a no/ce

under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. In the absence of such no-

Page N: 7 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

/ce, the land could not have been declared surplus, allo,ed to any other

person, or possession delivered to the allo,ee. On all these grounds,

learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of the present ap-

peal.

12.  This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for

both sides at length and has carefully examined the en/re record.

Analysis by this Court:

13.1  Jamabandis from 1950-51 to 1980-81 (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-8) consist-

ently record plain/ff Boota Singh and his brother Karam Singh (predecessor

of plain/ffs No.2 and 3) as tenants in cul/va/ng possession of the suit land.

Inder Singh and others were recorded as owners. Owing to this long-stand-

ing possession, the plain/ffs ins/tuted Civil Suit No.31 of 1983 seeking de-

clara/on of ownership against the recorded landowners. The trial Court,

while delivering judgment on 21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1), relied heavily upon

Jamabandi 1950-51 and 1955-56, showing plain/ffs as tenants on fixed rent

less than land revenue. Such an entry is a recognised indicia of occupancy

tenancy under Sec/ons 5 & 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

13.2  The civil court in 1987 judgment Ex.P1 rejected the defence of

Inder Singh that he received 1/3rd batai from the plain/ffs. That plea had

already been dismissed in appeal by the Assistant Collector, Dabwali, and

no reason was shown for the subsequent change of entries to 1/3rd batai in

later jamabandis. No evidence explained this change. On these facts, the

Civil Court in Ex.P1 gave a categorical finding that the plain/ffs had ac-

quired occupancy rights, which had matured into ownership.

13.3  There is nothing on record to show that the judgment dated

21.04.1987 (Ex.P-1) was ever challenged by Inder Singh or his legal repres-

enta/ves. Even in the present proceedings neither the State nor the allot-

tee filed any counter-claim to annul or even ques/on the decree Ex.P1. This

Page N: 8 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

gives the decree a presump/on of correctness under Sec/on 43 of the Evid-

ence Act, and a judgment inter par/es remains binding unless set aside.

14.1 The appellant contends that because the State was not a party

to the 1983 suit, the 1987 judgment (Ex.P-1) cannot bind the State, since

the land had allegedly vested in the State in 1961 pursuant to surplus

declara/on and Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,

1972.

14.2  Although the argument appears a,rac/ve at first glance, it col-

lapses upon examina/on because the appellant’s case rests en/rely upon

the assump/on that the surplus-area order of 1961 was valid and operat-

ive. If the founda/onal 1961 surplus order itself is void ab ini/o, no ves/ng

under Sec/on 12(3) could ever occur. A void order is a nullity and confers

no rights.

15. Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, are relev-

ant to the case, which reads as under:

“6. Assessment of surplus area, with landowners and tenants. -

(1)Every patwari shall prepare, in duplicate, statements in Forms

D and DD for every landowner and tenant, respec/vely, who owns or

holds land in excess of the permissible area in his circle, and shall re-

tain one copy of each such Form himself and forward the other to the

circle kanungo.

(2)The circle kanungo shall, aJer personal examina/on, test all

entries made by the patwari in Form D or Form DD and forward it to

the circle revenue officer.

(3)The circle revenue officer, shall, aJer holding such enquiry as

he thinks fit and aJer giving the persons concerned, an opportunity

of being heard, forward his report to the Collector.

Page N: 9 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

(4)Where, in the case of a landowner, Forms A, C and E, and in

the case of a tenant, Forms B and C, have been received by the Col-

lector, from the Special Collector, under rule 4-C, the Collector shall,

aJer holding such enquiry, as he thinks fit, return them to the Special

Collector, along with Form D, in the case of a landowner and Form

DD in the case of a tenant.

(5)In the case of a landowner or tenant who has furnished his

Form to the Special Collector, under rules 3 and 4, the Special Col-

lector shall [aJer giving the landlord or tenant an opportunity of be-

ing heard and] aJer such enquiry as he thinks fit, assess his surplus

area. In doing so, he shall hear any objec/ons made by the

landowner or tenant, and in a wri,en order decide such objec/ons.

In case no objec/ons are made or the person affected does not ap-

pear, the fact shall be stated in the order.

(6)In the case of a landowner or tenant who has furnished his

Forms of the Collector, under rules 3 and 4, the Collector shall a2er

giving the landlord or tenant an opportunity of being heard and

a2er such enquiry as he thinks fit, assess his surplus area. In doing

T72 YP TYSGG YPS0 S9) 7.,PAO79T vS8P .) NYP GS98759er or tenant,

S98 C9 S 50CsP9 708P0 8PAC8P T1AY 7.,PAO79Tt f9 ASTP 97 7.,PAO79T

are made or the person affected does not appear, the fact shall be

stated in the order.

(7) (i) The Collector or the Special Collector shall prepare a statement

in Form F and forward immediately a copy thereof to the landowner

or tenant concerned under cover of an endorsement prescribed in

the Form and it shall be served upon the landowner or tenant as if it

were a summons in the manner prescribed in sec/on 90 of the Pun-

jab Tenancy Act, 1887.

Page N: 10 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

(ii)The Special Collector shall also forward a copy of Form F pre-

pared by him to the Collector of every district in which the surplus

area of the landowner or tenant is situate.

(8) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector or the Spe-

cial Collector, may within 60 days from the date of communica/on of

the decision to such person, to be computed aJer excluding the /me

spent in obtaining a copy of such decision, appeal to –

(a) the Commissioner of the Division where the person resides, in

case the person resides in Ambala or Jullundur Division;

(b) the Commissioner of the Division where the largest por/on of the

holding of the person is situate, in case the person resides outside

Ambala and Jullundur Divisions; and the decision of the Commis-

sioner which shall be duly communicated by the Commissioner to the

Collector or Collectors concerned shall be final.

(9)The Collector or the Special Collector or the Commissioner

shall not while deciding any case under this rule, entertain any claim

from a landowner for the exemp/on of any area on any of the

grounds set forth in sub-rule (1) of rule 10.]

16.  The plain/ffs were recorded as tenants since 1950-51. Under

Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, as reproduced

above, no/ce to tenants in cul/va/ng possession is mandatory before de-

claring land as surplus. Admi,edly, no no/ce was served upon the plain/ffs

before passing the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961. Orders passed be-

hind the back of mandatory necessary par/es are void. Reliance can be

placed on State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, AIR 1974 SC 994; and Ram

Swarup v. S.N. Maira, AIR 1999 SC 2427.

Page N: 11 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

17.  A surplus-area order passed without jurisdic/on cannot vest

land in the State under Sec/on 12 of the 1972 Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held that ves/ng under Ceiling Acts applies only to validly declared sur-

plus land. Reliance can be placed on Kela Devi v. Financial Commissioner,

(1980) 3 SCC 64.

18. The central argument advanced on behalf of the appellant—

that once land is declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure

Act, it vests in the State under Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land

Holdings Act, 1972, irrespec/ve of u/lisa/on or con/nued possession, pro-

ceeds upon the assump/on that the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961

was validly passed in accordance with law. It is on this premise that learned

counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a catena of judgments in-

cluding Dharampal v. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 37; Amar

Singh v. Ajmer Singh, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 213; Dona Ram v. State of Hary-

ana, 2012 (1) LAR 384; Gopal v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 466;

Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) Law Herald 302;

Surendranath Diwan v. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) RRR 115; Smt. Bhag-

5S9O rPMC Mt JNSNP 7B 9S0)S9S2 (==c ade ggg iA?< S9d Ujagar Singh v.

State of Haryana, 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 960. These decisions no doubt hold

that once surplus-area proceedings have a,ained finality, and a valid sur-

plus declara/on exists, ves/ng in the State occurs by opera/on of law and

is not dependent on u/lisa/on or the con/nued possession of the

landowner.

19. However, the aforesaid line of decisions rests upon one found-

a/onal presump/on, which is conspicuously absent in the present case,

namely, that the surplus-area order was validly made. Here, the record

leaves no manner of doubt that the plain/ffs were tenants in cul/va/ng

possession of the suit land ever since 1951–52, as evidenced by jamabandis

from 1950–51 to 1980–81. Under Rule 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Punjab Security

Page N: 12 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, it was mandatory upon the Collector to serve

no/ce upon such tenants before declaring any land as surplus. The admit-

ted posi/on is that no such no/ce was ever served upon the plain/ffs prior

to passing of the surplus order dated 27.09.1961. The surplus declara/on

was, thus, passed in complete viola/on of the statutory mandate and

without affording any opportunity of hearing to the tenants, whose rights

were directly affected.

20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh

(supra) and Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira (supra) has authorita/vely held that

an order passed without no/ce to a person, who is mandatorily required to

be heard is wholly without jurisdic/on and void ab ini/o. A void order is

non-est in the eyes of law and cannot confer any rights on any party. Vest-

ing under Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act can take effect only

where surplus land is validly declared. This principle is further for/fied by

the decisions in Financial Commissioner v. Kela Devi (supra), wherein the

Supreme Court held that ves/ng under Sec/on 12(3) postulates a valid sur-

plus declara/on.

21. Consequently, the surplus-area order dated 27.09.1961, having

been passed without jurisdic/on, could not have resulted in ves/ng of /tle

in the State on 23.12.1972 or on any subsequent date. Once the very

founda/on of the State’s /tle collapses, the en/re edifice of allotment in fa-

vour of the appellant necessarily falls.

22. Further, Ld. Counsel for the appellant’s reliance on judgments

such as Smt. Radha Bai v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 509; Meg

Raj v. Manphul, 2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 649; Devender Singh v. State of Hary-

ana, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 491; Mahinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008

(1) PLR 96; and Azad v. Dharampal, 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 139, to contend

that the civil Court’s jurisdic/on is barred by Sec/on 26 of the Haryana Ceil-

Page N: 13 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

ing Act, is equally misplaced. The bar under Sec/on 26 applies to orders

passed within jurisdic/on by the prescribed authori/es under the 1972 Act.

It has no applica/on to a case, where the founda/onal order is void ab ini-

/o.

23. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. In Dhulabhai v.

State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78, the Supreme Court held that where the or-

der complained of is a nullity, the civil Court retains jurisdic/on. This prin-

ciple was reiterated in categorical terms by the Full Bench of this Court in

State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1986 PLJ 161, wherein it was held that a

surplus-area order passed without hearing the landowner/tenant as man-

dated by Rule 6 is a nullity and that a civil suit to challenge such an order is

maintainable notwithstanding Sec/on 25 or Sec/on 26. This binding pre-

cedent directly answers the objec/on raised on behalf of the appellant.

24. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has next relied on Ranjit Singh v.

419CACoSG u70o70SO792 IS0C8S.S82 d:(( a(e gug auCMCl) 105; and Smt.

Shakuntla v. Satbir, 2011 (1) Rent L.R. 211, to contend that the plain/ffs

never acquired occupancy rights. These decisions pertain to situa/ons,

where tenants paid rent exceeding land revenue and thus, did not fulfil the

statutory criteria under Sec/on 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In the

present case, the jamabandis for 1950–51 and 1955–56 clearly reflect rent

less than land revenue. Moreover, the Assistant Collector had already rejec-

ted the landlord’s claim of receiving batai from the plain/ffs. These facts

were considered by the Civil Court in its judgment dated 21.04.1987 (Ex.P-

1), wherein it was held, aJer full trial, that the plain/ffs had acquired occu-

pancy rights, which ripened into ownership under the 1952 Act. That de-

cree has a,ained finality. Neither the State nor the appellant has taken any

steps at any stage to assail that decree. The appellant cannot now indirectly

challenge findings which have long since been crystallised.

Page N: 14 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

25. On the ques/on of limita/on, reference has been made by Ld.

Counsel for appellant to Anoop Singh v. Bachani Devi, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil)

26; and Rajiv Gupta v. Prashant Garg, 2025 AIR SC 2392. These cases con-

cerned challenges the muta/on orders or sale deeds governed by Ar/cles

58 and 59 of the Limita/on Act. The present case is therefore different. The

plain/ffs were admi,edly dispossessed only on 11.11.1989, as is evident

from Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D-2). The suit was filed immediately thereaJer,

seeking recovery of possession based on their /tle.

26. A suit seeking possession on the basis of ownership is gov-

erned by Ar/cle 65 of the Limita/on Act, which provides a period of 12

years. This posi/on is conclusively se,led in State of Maharashtra v.

Praveen Jethalal Kamda, 2000 (3) SCC 460; and C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai

(2007(14) SCC 183), where the Supreme Court held that where the sub-

stan/ve relief is recovery of possession based on /tle, Ar/cle 65 applies,

and Ar/cle 58 has no applica/on. Further, as held in Gurdev Singh v. State

of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 1, limita/on does not run in favour of a party, who

takes possession under a void and non-est order. The plea of limita/on

raised by the appellant is, thus, wholly without any merit.

27. Viewed in the totality of circumstances, this Court finds that

the surplus-area order of 1961, having been passed without no/ce to the

tenants-in-possession, is void ab ini/o; that no ves/ng ever took place in fa-

vour of the State; that the plain/ffs’ /tle stood affirmed by the decree

dated 21.04.1987, which has a,ained finality; that the plain/ffs were dis-

possessed only on 11.11.1989; that the suit filed thereaJer was within lim-

ita/on; and that the civil Court’s jurisdic/on to adjudicate upon a void or-

der remains intact. Consequently, none of the authori/es relied upon by

the appellant advances his case, whereas the law cited on behalf of the re-

spondents is fully a,racted to the facts in hand.

Page N: 15 of total 16 Pages

RSA-3307-1998

Conclusion :

28.  Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent

findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No substan/al ques/on of

law arises for considera/on under Sec/on 100 CPC. Accordingly, the

present appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merits.

28.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Yogesh JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

Page N: 16 of total 16 Pages