S. SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL NABHA, DISTRICT PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for the grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from recovering the reclamation charges has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit on the allegations that he was a co -sharer along with Sukhpal Singh and Sukhdial Singh of the suit land. The Tahsildar, Patiala, was taking steps for the recovery of the reclamation charges which, so far as he was concerned, were to the tune of Rs. 8,680/ -. According to him, the notification and the notices required to be issued under law bad not been issued, nor served upon him and as such, all the proceedings regarding reclamation; assessment of the reclamation charges; apportionment thereof and also for their recovery, were illegal and without jurisdiction It was also pleaded that the Agriculture Department or the Collector had never taken possession from him, nor had delivered back possession to him. He was not given an opportunity to remove the trees standing on his land which had resulted into a loss of Rs. 20,000/ - to him. Thus, it was prayed that the decree restraining the defendant from recovering the reclamation charges be passed in his favour. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendant Inter alia on the ground that the suit for injunction did not lie against it when it was engaged in the recovery of the arrears of land revenue. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit was also pleaded to be barred. It was contended that a sum of Rs. 9,89208 was due from the plaintiff and that the recovery proceedings were being taken for the same. It was denied that the proper procedure under the PEPSU Reclamation of Lands Act had not been followed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that after having found under issue No. 1, that the recovery of the reclamation charges was illegal, the suit could not be dismissed on the technical ground that the plaintiff had not prayed for the grant of a decree for declaration and had only prayed for the grant of a decree for injunction In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Shiv Dayal v/s. Union of India, A.I. R. 1983 P&H. 538, and Sardara Singh v/s. Sardara Singh, 1976 Rev. L.R. 172.