ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recovery of Rupees 9,241/6/- was sought to be made against Roshan Lal by the State of Punjab by way of arrears of land revenue on the plea that water- mill (Gharat) was leased out to him on 22-7-1952 and the aforesaid amount was still due from him. In this behalf, the plaintiff had received a notice from the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha to pay the said amount failing which coercive procedure of recovery as arrears of land revenue was to be adopted. Roshan Lal served a notice under S. 80 of the Civil P. C. and thereafter filed a suit for injunction restraining the State from recovering the said amount on the plea that no amount was due from him and in any event, he had already paid in excess and in fact the State of Punjab owned about Rs. 3,000/- to him. In the plaint he had furnished the details about five times. That is how he pleaded that he had overpaid and nothing was due from him. The State contested the suit mainly on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the proper remedy of the plaintiff was to pay the disputed amount and then to file a suit for the refund of the same. Some of the issues framed in the case on which fate of the suit will depend, are issues 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, which are as follows :--

(2.) On issue No. 2, the trial Court found from the statements of PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7, besides the statement of the plaintiff as PW 8, that the plaintiff was ousted by the Canal Authorities from the water-mill in the month of July, 1952 and hence issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court noticed that the State had not led any evidence in rebuttal. Issue No. 3 was also found in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court. He had proved receipt Exhibit P. 1 by production Shambu Ram, Ex. Treasury Officer as PW 2. The trial Court believed the statement of Shambu Ram and plaintiff as PW 8 and in view of receipt Exhibit P.1, decided issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 5,000/- as security. Again it was noticed that no evidence was led by the State in rebuttal. As regards issue No. 4, since onus was placed on the State and no evidence was led, issue No. 4 was decided against the State. In para 5 of the plaint, regarding which issue No. 4 was framed, there was a categorical averment to the following effect: "5. That over and above the security amount, the plaintiff had also paid the two amounts of Rs. 2,400/- and Rupees 3,471/- towards the lease money of these Gharats."

(3.) In para 4 of the plaint, reliance had been placed on three receipts by way of security deposit, one for Rupees 5,000/- , another for Rs. 1,000/- and the third for Rs. 1,500/- . Since no evidence was produced by the State, issue No. 4 was also decided against the State and in favour of the plaintiff. The resultant effect is that besides Rs. 5,000/- the plaintiff had paid Rs. 5,871/- . However, issues 6 and 8 were decided together and in view of Punjab Province v. Municipal Committee, Rohtak, AIR 1947 Lah 236 and R. S. A. No. 559 of 1962, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 29-10-1963, it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant injunction prayed for and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under S. 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the remedy of the plaintiff lay somewhere else. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge did not go into the merits of the case and in view of the decision in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and in Faqir Chand v. Gram Sabha, village Lataur, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, (1970) 72 Pun LR 914, came to the conclusion that under Section 158 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the proper remedy of the plaintiff, according to the provisions of S. 78 of the Act, is to deposit the amount claimed under protest and only then he can file a civil suit to claim refund of the same and then it will be determined whether the rent claimed was correctly recovered or not. The plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal.