HAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastav, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20. 10. 1994 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1994 setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 18. 3. 1991.

(3.) THE stand of the defendants was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as assessment and imposition of the tax was governed by U. P. Act No. XI of 1961 and also the plaintiff could challenge the assessment of tax by filing an appeal within thirty days of intimation before the Sugar Cane Commissioner or Assistant Sugar Cane Commissioner and thereafter a revision could also be filed before the State Government. Tax was recoverable as arrears of land revenue, therefore, the suit was barred under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.