THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff Partap Singh filed the suit against the State of Punjab for declaration that he was not a defaulter as defined under section 3(8) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and no coercive method by way of arrest or attachment of his property could be the taken, with a consequential relief for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking coercive methods against him on the ground that he was never appointed a lambardar by any revenue authority, but on certain occasions, he helped the Patwari who used to receive the land revenue and also used to say that he being Government servant could not give the receipts. So, the receipts were got written from him. The Patwari was responsible for depositing of the land revenue collected and the plaintiff was not in a position to state whether the revenue Patwari had been de 'tin the same or not. In the first week of September, 1974, the revenue authorities for the first time caused unnecessary harassment to him and called Up pay the on him to the pay amount of the land revenue despite the fact that he brought it to the notice of the said officials that he has not collected any land revenue. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was not a defaulter under section 3(8) of the Act and since he was not a defaulter, no coercive method by way of arrest or attachment of his property could be taken. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that under section 158 of the Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction, as the matter related to land revenue. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed the village lambardar from rabi 1966 and he collected land revenue from the land owners up to rabi 1975 being a lambardar and deposited it into Government treasury. It was denied that the Patwari ever collected the land revenue. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was a defaulter as defined under section 3(8) of the Act, as amended vide Punjab Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1974; hence the recovery proceedings for the amount against him were being done in accordance with law. The trial Court found that civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was further found that the plaintiff was duly appointed as a lambardar of the village and that he collected the amount from the landowners as such. The plaintiff was held to be a defaulter as defined under section 3(8) of the Act. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said findings of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff was never appointed a lambardar in accordance with law and, therefore, he could not be held to be defaulter and no amount could be recovered from him as the arrears of land revenue.

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant-State submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. Commissioner, Jullundur Division, 1987 92 PunLR 533 the plaintiff will be a defaulter from March 15, 1974, when the amended Act came into force. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the amount due from the plaintiff from March 15, 1974 onwards will be recoverable as the arears of land revenue. Prior thereto, he could not be held to be a defaulter in view of the said judgment.