Surplus Area Declaration Without Notice to Tenants is Void Ab Initio: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“A void order is non-est in the eyes of law and cannot confer any rights on any party. Vesting under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act can take effect only where surplus land is validly declared.” – Punjab And Haryana High Court

In a latest judgement Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifying the sanctity of procedural safeguards in land ceiling laws, has held that the issuance of notice to tenants in cultivating possession is mandatory before declaring land as surplus. Justice Deepak Gupta ruled that a surplus area declaration order passed without serving notice upon recorded tenants, as required under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, is void ab initio. The Court further established that the State cannot claim vesting of title under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, if the foundational order declaring the land surplus is a nullity.

“If the foundational 1961 surplus order itself is void ab initio, no vesting under Section 12(3) could ever occur. A void order is a nullity and confers no rights.”—High Court affirms principles of natural justice

At the heart of the dispute in this case was the validity of a surplus area order dated September 27, 1961, passed by the Collector, Surplus Area, regarding the land of one Inder Singh. The plaintiffs (respondents herein), Boota Singh and others, were recorded as tenants in cultivating possession of the suit land since 1950-51. However, the 1961 order declaring the land surplus was passed without issuing notice to them. Decades later, in 1989, the State allotted this land to the appellant, Harpat Singh, and the plaintiffs were dispossessed. The central legal question before the Bench was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to declare the 1961 order void despite the statutory bar under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and whether the State acquired valid title to allot the land.

The dispute arose from a long-standing tenancy. The plaintiffs claimed they were occupancy tenants who had acquired ownership rights. In fact, they had secured a decree in 1987 declaring them owners against the original landowner, Inder Singh. However, the State and the allottee (Harpat Singh) contended that by virtue of the 1961 surplus declaration, the land had vested in the State free from all encumbrances, and the 1987 decree was not binding on the State. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the 1961 order and the subsequent 1989 allotment void. The allottee approached the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal.

On Mandatory Notice and Natural Justice:

The Court categorically held that Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, mandates the Collector to serve notice upon tenants before assessing surplus area. The Bench noted that the revenue records (Jamabandis from 1950 to 1981) consistently showed the plaintiffs as tenants. Citing Supreme Court precedents in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh and Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira, the Court observed that an order passed behind the back of necessary parties is "wholly without jurisdiction."

On Vesting of Land in the State:

Addressing the appellant's argument that the land stood vested in the State upon declaration of surplus area, the Court distinguished between a valid order and a void order. It observed that Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act postulates a valid surplus declaration. The Court held, "Once the very foundation of the State’s title collapses, the entire edifice of allotment in favour of the appellant necessarily falls." Since the 1961 order was a nullity due to lack of notice, no title ever vested in the State, rendering the subsequent allotment to Harpat Singh illegal.

On Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:

The appellant argued that Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Rejecting this, the Court relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.. The Bench clarified that the statutory bar applies only to orders passed within jurisdiction. It does not apply where the foundational order is a nullity or void ab initio. The Civil Court retains inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders passed in violation of mandatory statutory procedures.

On Limitation:

The Court dismissed the plea that the suit was time-barred. It held that since the plaintiffs were seeking recovery of possession based on title, the suit was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 12-year period, rather than Article 58. The Court noted that limitation does not run in favor of a party taking possession under a void order.

Takeaway of Judgement:

Confirms that notice to tenants under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules is mandatory, and its absence renders proceedings void ab initio.

Clarifies that land does not vest in the State under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act if the surplus declaration order is a nullity.

Reaffirms that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging orders that are void or passed without jurisdiction, despite statutory bars.

Upholds the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and restoring the rights of the tenants.

Date of Decision: 28.11.2025