SARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from effecting recovery of Rs. 10,18,352 as per notice received by him from Assistant Collector (1st Grade), Patiala, the same being wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction, was dismissed.

(2.) In nutshell, case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he was owner of 12 Acres of land comprised in Khasra No.29 min situated at village Gulalpur, Tehsil Chatha, District Mathura. Ram Kishan (predecessor in interest of defendant No.3) was allotted 67 Kanals 12 Marlas of land situated at village Haji Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala, which was declared surplus on 27.11.1975 and mutation No.59 was sanctioned in his name on 24.02.1976. Ram Kishan through his attorney Ram Chand entered into a deed of exchange with the plaintiff-appellant and thus, the land owned by him at village Gulalpur was exchanged with the land of Ram Kishan allotted to him at village Haji Majra. The exchange deed was duly scribed and registered with the Sub-Registrar vide Vasika No.4633 dated 22.03.1976. The said exchange was acted upon and possession was delivered to the parties.

(3.) Ram Kishan became the owner in possession of the land situated at village Gulalpur while the plaintiff-appellant became owner in possession of the land situated at village Haji Majra. It was further averred that the land received by the plaintiff-appellant in exchange was acquired by the State of Punjab and he received compensation as mutation No.63 dated 04.06.1976 was sanctioned in his favour. It was further averred that on 04.06.1986, the Collector (Agrarian) cancelled the allotment of land in dispute alleging that Ram Kishan had violated clause 10(E) of the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 as there was a specific bar to alienate the land, in any form, prior to expiry of a period of 15 years from the date of possession or till the allottee becomes the owner, whichever period is later. Ram Kishan as well as the plaintiff-appellant filed separate appeals against the said cancellation order which were dismissed by the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala on 25.07.2007. The plaintiff-appellant preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Appeal-I, Punjab, Chandigarh which was disposed of on 03.02.1998 and in pursuance of the said order, recovery proceedings regarding the amount received by the plaintiff-appellant were initiated and he was compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,92,147 as refund of the amount of acquisition compensation. Thus, the appellant lost both of his lands i.e. at village Gulalpur and the land given to him in exchange. Ram Kishan had played fraud with him as he was not competent to execute the exchange deed. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant had already filed a suit against the legal heirs of Ram Kishan for refund of the said amount. Now the plaintiff-appellant has received a notice for recovery of Rs. 10,18,352 and on enquiry it has been revealed that the said amount is claimed as interest on the amount which was received by him as compensation. It was further averred that there was no order of the competent authority to recover any interest. Hence the present suit.