Judgment:
B. Rai, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and the Allotment/Prescribed Authority against the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1992 of the District Judge, Sirsa, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Dabwali, decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent Paramjit Kaur declaring her to be the owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of l/4th share.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Paramjit Kaur plaintiff who was minor at the relevant time, filed a suit through her guardian Gurtej Singh whose interest was not adverse to that of the plaintiff, on the grounds that after the death of her father Kulwant Singh in the year 1978 who was owner of 456 Kanals 9 Marias of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Jogewala, Tehsil Dabwali, she inherited the suit land to the extent of l/4th share and Mutation No. 1882 dated January 1, 1980 was sanctioned in her favour. The plaintiff also assailed the finding of the Allotment/Prescribed Authority vide which the defendant-appellants separated the land Under Section 14 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and allotted the same to different persons in State v. larnail Singh, Jasmail Singh, Jaila Singh, Bachittar Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Ram Chander's case, specifically asserting that the land in dispute to the extent of l/4th share belonged to her. She prayed therein that the Allotment Order, dated February 26, 1985 whereby the land was partitioned and allotted to different persons be declared null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, she being a minor and recorded owner on the date of passing of the Allotment Order, i.e. February 26, 1985 and that the notice which was sine qua non for affording an opportunity of hearing was not served upon the plaintiff before passing the said order.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants, inter alia, on the ground that Karnail Singh, grandfather of Paramjit Kaur was a big landowner whose area was declared surplus vide order, dated December 29, 1960 by the Collector (Surplus) and thereafter, the said land vested in the State Government and, as such, was allotted to eligible persons by the Allotment Authority vide order, dated February 26, 1985. According to the defendants, due notice was given to Karnail Singh who appeared through his son Gurjant Singh and with counsel Mr. Mohinder Singh. They also took the plea that in case the plaintiff felt aggrieved, she could have filed an appeal or revision against the Allotment Order, dated February 26, 1985 which she failed to do. In the absence of any such appeal/revision, she was estopped from filing the present suit.
4. By way of Replication, averments contained in the plaint were reiterated and those contained in the written statement were denied.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed by the trial Court:
(1) Whether the order dated 26.2.1985 for partitioning the land and allotting the same to different persons is null and void, without jurisdiction, non est, not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint OPP
(2) If Issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as alleged OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her act and conduct OPD
(4) Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice Under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure OPD
(5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ?
(6) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction OPD
(7) Whether the suit is time-barred OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?
(9) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties OPD
(10) Relief.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence led by them, Issues 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that order, dated February 26, 1985 was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. All other Issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. As a result, decree dated July 30, 1990 for declaration was passed in favour of Paramjit Kaur plaintiff.
7. As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, appeal filed by the defendants failed and was dismissed by the District Judge, Sirsa, on August 31, 1992
8. In this Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have challenged the findings on Issues 1 and 2 only. Only argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that before the land was declared surplus, a due notice was given to Karnail Singh grandfather of Paramjit Kaur plaintiff who put in appearance through his son Gurjant Singh and counsel Mohinder Singh. Not only that, Allotment Order, dated February 26, 1985 was passed after hearing them. It was further contended that Paramjit Kaur instead of filing the suit, should have filed appeal or revision in case she was aggrieved of the said order and since this course was not adopted by her for reasons best known to her, she was estopped from filing the suit.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the order, dated December 29,1960 passed by the Collector (Surplus) declaring the land in dispute as surplus in the hands of big landowner Karnail Singh, grandfather of Paramjit Kaur was set aside in Civil Writ Petition No. 1416 of 1983 (Darbara Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.), decided on January 3, 1989 (reported as 1989 PLJ 85), Copy Exhibit P-7.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on the record. It is not disputed that when order, dated February 26, 1985, Copy Exhibit P-5 was passed, Paramjit Kaur plaintiff grand daughter of Karnail Singh was about nine years of age and, as such, a minor, and that her father had already died. The factum of death of Kulwant Singh and of Paramjit Kaur being minor has been proved by Atma Singh Patwari (Surplus) of the Office of Naib Tehsildar Who deposed as DW-1. He also admitted in his deposition that Mutation of the land in dispute left by Kulwant Singh, father of Paramjit Kaur, was sanctioned in her favour and that she inherited the said land as a co-sharer. He also stated therein that the notice allegedly given to Karnail Singh, grandfather of Paramjit Kaur, was not on the file. It was also not disputed that Paramjit Kaur was having share in the land in dispute to the extent of l/4th share as per entries reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1983- 84. When confronted with the decision of this Court in Darbara Singh's case (supra), the learned counsel for the appellants felt tight to address any argument. Once it was found that Paramjit Kaur was co sharer in the land in dispute to the extent of l/4th share and neither any notice was given nor was afforded any opportunity of hearing and more so, the order, dated December 29, 1960 having been set aside by this Court in Darbara Singh's case (supra), it is difficult to attach any weight to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the land being surplus bad vested in the State and it was rightly allotted to the eligible persons. In the aforesaid case, this Court had left the Authorities at liberty to re-determine the surplus area of the landowner in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, not been able to show that in pursuance to the judgment of this Court, the area has been re-determined as surplus. This being the position, it cannot be said that Paramjit Kaur is not the owner of the land in dispute to the extent of 1/4th share. The order allotting the land to different persons is non est. Therefore, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of Paramjit Kaur plaintiff.
11. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.