KALU RAM Vs. THE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges judgment and decree dated 30.07.1988, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, reversing judgment and decree dated 06.02.1988, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Sonepat. Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand by respondent No. 3 -Gram Panchayat, Murthal, to recover arrears of rent, in purported exercise of power under Section 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to a the Act) (as applicable to the State of Haryana), was without jurisdiction as it was not preceded by any determination. The impugned notice served to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue was, therefore, clearly illegal and a permanent injunction was rightly granted by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has erred in holding that the remedy of the appellant is to file a suit after the payment of the amount in terms of Section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "1887 Act"). It is contended that while considering a similar controversy, it has been held in "Punjab State and others V/s Bachan Lal " 1986 PLJ 586, that if a civil Court comes to a prima -facie conclusion that the demand is totally illegal, it may grant an injunction against recovery as arrears of land revenue and would not require the aggrieved party to file a suit under Section 78 of the 1987 Act.

(2.) NO -one is present on behalf of respondent No. -3 Gram Panchayat.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the appellant took land on rent from the Gram Panchayat but as he did not pay the lease money, the Gram Panchayat quantified the amount as Rs. 4,378/ -, issued a notice and forwarded a request to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Sonepat to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue. The appellant filed a suit, seeking an injunction against this demand by inter -alia pleading that as possession of the land, in dispute, was not delivered, and no adjudication had preceded raising of the demand, the order passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sonepat, demanding Rs. 4,378/ - as arrears of land revenue, is illegal. The trial court decreed the suit but the first appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court by placing reliance upon revenue entries that record the appellant in possession of the land, in dispute. After considering the aforesaid revenue entries, the first appellate Court proceeded to allow the appeal by holding as follows: -