GAON SABHA Vs. KUSHAL PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demanding or realising the balance of the contract money as arrears of land revenue or in any manner whatsoever,

(2.) The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows: On 28th March, 1966 the right to lift and take out sand from the bed of river Jamuna in village Jakhan Tahsil and District Etawah was auctioned by the Tehsildar, Etawah, defendant No. 2, on behalf of Gaon Sabha Jakhan, defendant No. 1. The terms of the auction sale were that the Theka would be given to the bidder whose bid was accepted by the S. D. O. Etawah. defendant No. 3 and such bidder would have to execute an agreement in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff made the highest bid of Rs. 16,000/- and deposited one-fourth amount thereof in Tehsil Etawah in favour of defendant No. 1. The acceptance of the bid was not communicated to the plaintiff whereupon he sent a letter dated 14th May, 1966 in that connection and when despite repeated reminders no reply was received, the plaintiff revoked the offer by letter dated 24th May, 1966. However, the plaintiff was asked by the Tehsildar to appear before him and in compliance thereof the plaintiff appeared before the Tehsildar who threatened him that he would send the plaintiff to jail if he did not deposit Rs. 12,000/- and did not execute the agreement It is maintained that under such coercion and threat the plaintiff executed the agreement, on 30th June, 1966 and deposited a sum.of Rupees 4,000/- on 1st July, 1966. It is further contended that the plaintiff was assured by defendant No. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 Gaon Sabha that he would be given free passage to gc to the plot in question and to lift the sand without any obstruction. But in spite of repeated requests both oral and written no free passage was provided to the plaintiff and the passage through plot No. 1956 was completely blocked by Hari Singh, Batti Lal and other persons of village Kiratpura. The plaintiff could not, therefore, lift sand from the bed of river Jamuna. Hence it was contended that the agreement was not enforceable and the plaintiff was entitled to the refund of Rs. 8,000/-. Since the defendants threatened to realise the amount by coercive measure, the plaintiff filed a suit after giving notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act. The suit was contested and the allegation that any coercion or undue influence was exercised by the Tehsildar upon the plaintiff was denied. It was also pleaded that the Gaon Sabha was entitled to realise the amount.

(3.) The trial court held that the land in dispute did not belong to the Gaon Sabha but belonged to the State of U.P. Hence the Gaon Sabha was not entitled to put the right of excavating the sand from the plot in question to auction. Hence the trial court decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 5, Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P., from realising the sum of Rs. 8,000/- with respect to the auction in dispute from the plaintiff. The suit against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. filed an appeal before the District Judge. The plaintiff also filed a cross-objection. Both the appeal and the cross-objection were heard together and by a common judgment both were dismissed. The Gaon Sabha has now filed the instant second appeal impleading the State of U.P. as one of the respondents.