SARDARA GURDIT SINGH Vs. SARDARA DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, dated February 19, 1971.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the plaintiff was that Narain Singh was a Lambardar of village Hazarasinghwala in district Ferozepore. He himself was residing in another village. Therefore, Hardit Singh had been appointed as a substitute Lambardar for him. The said Hardit Singh was removed on November 8, 1957 and Sardara Singh s/o Dharam Singh, the plaintiff, was appointed as such in his place. It is alleged by Sardara Singh that in fact he did not work as a substitute Lambardar and did not collect any land-revenue. According to him, it was the Patwari of the village who was collecting and depositing the land-revenue though he used to obtain his thumb-impressions on several documents. It is stated by him that the arrears of land-revenue went upto Rs. 40,000/-. He was challaned under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount. The Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, acquitted him on February 22, 1965. In the meantime, he states he made representations to the authorities for settling the accounts by demanding receipts from the defaulters in proof of their having paid the land-revenue. The authorities did not take any action on his representations. His land, on the other hand, was auctioned on the ground that an amount of Rupees 12,635.40 was due from him on January 18, 1965, for a consideration of Rupees 11,780/-. It was purchased by defendants 2 to 6. The sale was confirmed on February 31, 1966, by the Commissioner.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he was not a defaulter in respect of the payment of the land-revenue and, therefore, the proceedings for recovery of arrears of land-revenue by sale of his property were illegal and without jurisdiction. He further alleged that the auction of the land had not been conducted in accordance with law and a number of irregularities had been committed therein and, therefore, it was not binding on him. He consequently instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the Punjab State and other defendants praying that the defendants be restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute.