FAQIR CHAND Vs. GRAM SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Plaintiff who came to the Court with the allegation that the land measuring 13 bighas and 4 biswas situated in the area of village Latoor, was taken on lease by him from the Gram Panchayat at Rs. 12 per bigha besides two Teh at Rs. 50 for one year in the year 1961 which amount was duly paid to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The further averment is that the amount of Rs. 1,230.25 Ps. is now being realized from him as arrears of land revenue by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bassi. Therefore, the suit was brought in, that the Defendant Gram Panchayat be restrained from realizing this amount from him.

(2.) THE suit was opposed by the Gram Panchayat and a plea was taken that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed:

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that Section 12 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, only provides that any arrear of rent payable to a Panchayat in respect of any land vested in the Panchayat, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. His contention is that before the same can be recovered as the arrears of land revenue, it has to be found that the rent is in arrears and for that the Gram Panchayat cannot be allowed to become judge of its own cause and to determine as to what are the arrears. His further contention is that first the Gram Panchayat has to get it established from the civil Court as to what is the arrear and then the question of recovery will come in. For this proposition, the learned Counsel has relied on The Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi and Ors. v. S. Harnam Singh, 1956 P.L.R, 490. That was the case under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. In that case the Division Bench of this Court held that before the money could be recovered as arrears of land revenue, the condition precedent as to the recovery of the arrears of land revenue was if the two conditions are satisfied (1) that the sum is due to the State Government or to the Custodian, and (2) that the sum is due under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, his contention is that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred.