As per case facts, the plaintiffs, recorded as tenants since the 1950s, sought ownership of land declared surplus in the 1960s from the original landowner. They had obtained an earlier ... decree declaring them owners in the 1980s. However, the land was subsequently allotted to the defendant Harpat Singh, and possession was taken in the late 1980s, leading to the current suit challenging the surplus declaration and allotment. The question arose whether the surplus-area Order, passed without notice to the tenants-in-possession, was void, and its impact on the State's title and subsequent allotment, along with the civil court's Jurisdiction and the suit's Limitation period. Finally, the High Court affirmed that the surplus Order was void ab initio due to the absence of mandatory notice to tenants, meaning no title vested in the State. The civil court retained Jurisdiction over such void Orders, and the suit for possession, filed after dispossession, was within Limitation. The Appeal was dismissed, upholding the plaintiffs' ownership.