JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated August 20, 1992, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Sahib Ram, grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant, transferred the land in dispute measuring 171 Kanals 17 Marias to the plaintiff (who was minor at that time), through a Civil Court decree dated April 26, 1971. As the said transfer in his favour was after the appointed date, i.e., January 24, 1971, fixed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’), the Collector Surplus Area vide order dated August 8, 1980 ignored the transfer and related Sahib Ram as the owner of the land in dispute. On the appeal filed by Sahib Ram, the Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector Surplus Area for a fresh decision with a direction that Sahib Ram was entitled to the two units. The Collector vide order dated March 25, 1985, while deciding the case on remand, allowed Sahib Ram as area of 864 Kanals in ‘C’ category as his permissible area, including the land in dispute, which had been transferred to the plaintiff-appellant vide Civil Court decree dated April 26,1971. Sandeep Kumar was minor, his father Ranbir Singh, while filing his declaration separately from his father Sahib Ram, included the land in dispute in the area held by him and his family members. The Collector vide order dated June 29, 1981 declared the land in dispute as the surplus area under him. Thus, there were two self-contradictory orders passed by the authorities. Vide order dated March 25, 1985 passed in the case State v. Sahib Ram the land in dispute was declared as permissible area of Sahib Ram. In contradiction to that, vide order dated June 29, 1981 passed in the case State v. Ranbir Singh the same land was declared as surplus area of Ranbir Singh. Thus, the land transferred to the appellant by his grandfather Sahib Ram had been counted twice – one as Sahib Ram’s holding and again as Ranbir Singh’s holding. The appellant applied to the Prescribed Authority for rectification of the mistake. The prescribed Authority vide report dated April 11, 1986 recommended to the Collector, Sirsa, that the case be sent to the Financial Commissioner for taking suo moto action under Section 18(6) of the Act. The Collector allegedly rejected the recommendation made by the Prescribed Authority with an observation that the plaintiff-appellant himself should approach the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Act.
3. In order to challenge the order dated June 29, 1981, passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby the land in dispute was declared as surplus in the holding of Ranbir Singh, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (State) from interfering into his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. The trial Court granted the prayer made by the plaintiff and decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree date August 20, 1992 reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sandeep Kumar has filed the present appeal.
4. Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the learned lower appellate court has erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel contended that on the one hand the land in dispute had been included in the permissible area of Sahib Ram, grandfather of the petitioner, on the other hand
the same very area was declared as surplus area of Ranbir Singh son of Sahib Ram. Thus, according to the learned counsel, two self-contradictory orders had been passed by the authorities. He also contended that the order dated March 25, 1985 passed by the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa, vide which the land in dispute was declared as the permissible area of Sahib Ram, grandfather of the petitioner, had not been challenged by the State before any forum. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the said order had attained finality. Mr. Hooda also brought the attention of the Court towards the report made by the Prescribed Authority for the rectification of the mistake.In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Full Bench authority of this Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1977 P.L.J. 230.
5. Shri Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, contended that the Civil Court was debarred from entertaining the suit under Section 26 of the Act. Thus, the learned lower appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff Further, Mr. Dahiya contended that as the transfer of the land in dispute by Sahib Ram had been made after the appointed date fixed under the Act, the same could not be held as a valid transfer by any stretch of imagination.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 1 find considerable weight in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The State authorities cannot take benefit of the mistake committed by them. They had declared the land in dispute as the permissible area under Sahib Ram, grandfather of the plaintiff. The same very land could not be declared as surplus under Ranbir Singh, who is the son of Sahib Ram. Moreover, the order dated March 25, 1985, whereby the Collector Surplus Area had declared the land in dispute as the permissible area of Sahib Ram had not been challenged by the State before any forum. Thus, it had attained finality. Still further, the Prescribed Authority had noticed the mistake and made a recommendation to the Commissioner for suo moto rectification thereof by the Financial Commissioner. Thus, the authorities themselves were aware of the mistake committed by them.
7. Furthermore, Sahib Ram had made the transfer in favour of his grandson Sandeep Kumar through a Civil Court decree dated April 26, 1971. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Jaswant Kaur’s case (supra) that the transfer made upto December 23, 1972 are protected by Section 8(1) of the Act. Thus, the transfer made by Sahib Ram in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was a valid transfer under the Act.
8. In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated August 20, 1992 passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.