KARTAR SINGH LAMBARDAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary to give the facts of the case in detail as the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, did not seriously dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case was fit for remand to the lower appellate Court. The brief facts are that the plaintiff-appellant is Lambardar of village Nalvi. A sum of Rs.25,201/- was sought to be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue by the Tehsildar, Thanesar. In the suit of plaintiff challenged that order on the ground that no amount was due from him to the defendants on account of collection of land revenue from the various land-holders by him as Lambardar and whatever amount he had collected as land revenue and land taxes had been deposited by him in the Treasury. Other grounds were also taken by him but it is not necessary to refer to them. The suit was contested by the defendants i.e. State of Haryana and Tehsildar, Thanesar and inter alia it was pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide the present suit was barred in view of section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, (for short the Act).

(2.) The learned trial Court held that the defendants were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 22,441.83 from the plaintiff. It may be mentioned here that Rs. 2,000/- had already been recovered from the plaintiff. About the jurisdiction of the Civil Court it was held that vide section 3(8) of the Act as amended by Haryana Act 45 of 1973, a Lambardar was a defaulter if he had not deposited in the Government Treasury the land revenue collected by him and consequently by virtue of section 158(2) Clause (xiv) of the Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide the suit was barred. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. He did not go into the question as to whether any amount was due from the plaintiff or not. He, however, held that as the plaintiff was a Lambardar and fell within the definition of "defaulter", the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court in appeal.