← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/322/2024dismissed

Mahender Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-08-28Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,Mr. Justice Vikas Suri8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 101-3 Decided on : 28.08.2025 CM-748-LPA-2024 MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents VIJAY SINGH . .Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents 

 DHANPAT ALIAS DHANPAT RAI AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advocate Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) CM-748-LPA-2024 in LPA-322-2024  

   

   The prayer in the present application is for placing on record the sale deed as Annexure A-1.

-2-    

  

    

            LPA-322-2024 LPA-323-2024 LPA-312-2024

 !

    

          

       "             For the sake of convenience, facts are drawn from CWP-323-2024. 2.

In the present appeal, challenge is to the judgment dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7809 of 1988, by which, the claim raised by the appellants that the order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4) passed by Joint Secretary (Reh.)-cum-Settlement Commissioner Haryana is incorrect, has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that in year 1985, the land measuring 91 kanal, 14 marla was transferred in favour of late sh. Sohan Lal i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, which transfer has been reviewed by the Joint Secretary (Reh.)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that on the date when land measuring 91 kanal 14 marla was transferred in the name of late sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1985, he was already the owner of land measuring 38 kanal 02 marla, hence, he could not have been allotted the lan measuring 91 kanal 14 marla in his favour under the policy dated 25.08.1981 issued by the Government. 4.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that affidavit

-3dated 09.01.1973 which is being treated as false, was filed by late Sh. Sohan Lal stating that at the said that time, he did not owned any land except 101/2 acres of land allotted by provincial government and he only became the owner of land measuring 38 kanal 2 marla on the basis of suit for declaration passed by the competent court of Law in the year 1979 and therefore, the affidavit dated 09.01.1973 was given by late sh. Sohan Lal prior in time, hence, while considering the application filed by late Sh. Sohal Lal in the year 1981, the land has already been allotted in his favour in 1985, the same could not have been withdrawn on the basis of the fact that an affidavit filed has already been filed by late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1973, which fact has been ignored by the authorities concerned while passing the order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4) as well as order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 6.

It may be noticed that after the filing of the affidavit by late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1973, in the year 1975, certain land was allotted in favour of late Sh. Sohan Lal but, the said allotment was set-aside by the Financial Commissioner in year 1981, which order was challenged by late Sh. Sohan Lal by filing of CWP No. 5186 of 1981 and the cancellation of the allotment of the land by the Financial Commissioner was upheld by this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.03.1982. The relevant portion of the said order dated 12.03.1982 passed by this Court is as under:- "After the passing the order (Annexure P3) dated 11.9.1981, all

-4the petitioners filed applications before the Tehsildar, Sales, Rohtak on 16.9.81. A persual of those applications which are Annexures R1 to R4 to the petition shows that the petitioners had accepted the correctness of the order Annexure P.3. In these applications, they made averments for the giving up of their claim of possession prior to 1960 and that they wanted their case to be considered again. As the petitioners had moved applications to the concerned authorities after the impugned orders, we feel that they are not competent to challenge the order Annexure P.3. They should pursue those application, which shall be decided in accordance with law and the instructions governing the case of transfer of such lands. On examining the merits of the case, we do not find anything worth consideration. Dismissed, with no order as to costs. March 12,1982 Sd/- Kulwant Singh Tiwana.

Sd/- B. S. Yadav, Judge."

7.

The said order further was challenged by late Sh. Sohal Lal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing of Special Leave petition, which petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

8.

A bare perusal of the order dated 12.03.1982 passed by this Court shows that the liberty was given to late Sh. Sohan Lal to pursue his application filed for allotment of land in the year 1981. In pursuance to the said application, the allotment of certain land was made in favour of late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1985 by taking into consideration his earlier affidavit

-5was given in the year 1973 to the effect that, he did not own any land. Nothing evident has come on record to show that the fact with regard to the allotment of land in favour of late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1979 through a civil suit was mentioned by late Sh. Sohan Lal while making the application in the year 1981 so as to prove his entitlement for the allotment of land. 9.

It is a conceded position that as per the policy/instructions of the Government dated 25.08.1981, in case, the claimant is already a land owner, he cannot allotted land, whereas, in the year 1985, late Sh. Sohan Lal was already owner of 38kanal 2 marla of land allotted to him in 1979. A complaint was made that the allotment of land in favour of Late Sh. Sohan Lal was incorrect as he was already the owner of land measuring 38 kanal 02 marlas, which is equivalent to 4-12 standard acres and keeping in view the totality of circumstances that the land was allotted in the favour of Late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1985 on the basis of his earlier affidavit filed in the year 1973 as after the filing of the said affidavit in 1973 , late Sh.

Sohan Lal became the owner of land measuring 38 kanals 02 marlas in the year 1979, which fact was withheld from the authorities concerned while getting allotment of land in the year 1985 in pursuance to his application filed in the year 1981. Ultimately, the allotment of land measuring 91 kanal 14 marla in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in 1985 was reviewed and the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4). The said action cannot be treated as arbitrary and illegal in any manner.

# $           %& 

  ''( 

%&       )   

-6-    (''(  

  

   ''( 

%&        

 

  

  %& ''(     *& #+             %&,   "    

+%#- %&&)    

 

   %.*    "

   %&  /



  ''(  %&     

  

''(                 *&  #+                  '0            1     ''(     *& #+       

   %.%    '' (           

  %.*   

    

          

+ / '(   

 %.%      

-7-      

      

   ''(  %.,          23 '

  $ ''("      *& +            

                                        %.*  %&  

 

               

- 4         

   ''( 

           

         

  %& 

   '' (               *&   #+             '    %&,     ''(          

,             

           

  

5   

 

    

-8-

. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

18.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 28.08.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No