Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction to Nullify Surplus Land Orders Passed Against Minor; Dismisses Second Appeals
Case Name: Jagdish and Others v. Raj Dulari and Others; Jagdish and Others v. Dharam Paul (Deceased) through LRs and Others
Date of Decision: 21 January 2026
Citation: RSA No. 2551 of 1995 and RSA No. 2552 of 1995
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed both Regular Second Appeals and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court declaring the surplus land order dated 29.01.1963 and the consequential allotment order dated 03.08.1987 as null and void. The Court held that surplus land proceedings initiated against a minor without appointment of a guardian and without notice or opportunity of hearing are void ab initio, and that civil courts retain jurisdiction where statutory provisions and principles of natural justice are violated.
Summary: The litigation arose out of a challenge to surplus land proceedings initiated against one Sahdev Singh, a co-sharer in joint agricultural land. The plaintiff asserted that the surplus area order dated 29.01.1963 passed by the Collector (Surplus Area), Sirsa, was illegal as Sahdev Singh was a minor at the relevant time and no guardian or next friend was appointed to represent him, in violation of Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC. It was further pleaded that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded, contrary to Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956.
It was also contended that since the land was joint and had never been partitioned, surplus area could not have been declared without first separating Sahdev Singh’s share under Section 24-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 and Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Sahdev Singh had sold his share to Shiv Chandrapal Singh in 1972, and after his death, the plaintiff inherited the property. The subsequent allotment of the land to third parties in 1987 was challenged as being a mere consequence of the void surplus declaration.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding both the surplus order of 1963 and the allotment order of 1987 to be null and void. The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings. In second appeal, the appellants argued that Sahdev Singh was not a minor, that notice was deemed sufficient, that surplus land vested automatically in the State, and that civil court jurisdiction was barred.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court found that Sahdev Singh’s date of birth clearly established his minority on the relevant date and that the surplus order neither recorded his minority nor appointed a guardian. Relying on the Full Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, the Court reiterated that notice and opportunity of hearing are mandatory under Rule 6(6). The Court further held that without separation of share from a joint holding, no specific khasra numbers could lawfully be declared surplus. It was also noted that the allotment in favour of the appellants had already been cancelled by the Financial Commissioner in 1990, which order had attained finality.
Decision: Both Regular Second Appeals were dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the concurrent judgments declaring the surplus land order and consequential allotment as void, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.