MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by fourteen petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the State of Punjab and its Officers of the Soil Conservation Department and also to the respondent-Banks not to recover the cost of lining of the water-course of outlet No. RD-12215-L.

(2.) THE lands of the petitioners are situated in villages Maluka and Kotha Guru, Tehsil Phul, District Bhatinda. These lands were being irrigated by the aforesaid outlet of Maluka Minor. Since it was a kacha water- course, a Scheme for the brick-lining of the water-course was approved by the District Land Development Committee, Bhatinda. The Scheme was notified on 3.2.1978 under Section 11 of the Punjab Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1963. The water-course, in question, serving the lands of the petitioners, was included in the Scheme. The said Scheme was financed by the Punjb State Co- operative Land Mortgage Bank (respondent No. 4) through the Primary Co- operative Land Mortgage Bank, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda. The petitioners have alleged that the water-course, marked ''A to B'' in Annexure P2 was not brick-lined and, therefore, the respondent-Bank was not entitled to make recovery of the loan advanced for the purposes of the Scheme. The lands of the petitioners are situated on the water-course marked ''AB'' in Annexure P2 and, since the brick-lining of that water-course was not done, the petitioners were not liable to pay any share of the expenditure of the brick- lining of other water-courses which did not serve the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners' case, in a nutshell, is that, since they did not derive any benefit from the Scheme, the respondent-Bank should be restrained from making recovery of the loan by sale of land. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (State of Punjab and Chief Soil Conservator, Punjab) have, in their joint reply, stated that the loans of the petitioners were included in the Scheme and the petitioner had agreed to raise loans from the Banks by mortgaging their lands. Since the petitioners' land are included in the command area of the outlet, recovery of loan is justified because the Scheme was implemented on command-area basis. The petitioners are, therefore, said to be liable to bear the proportionate cost of the project. In the joint reply, the respondent-Bank, namely, the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank and the Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, Rampura Phul, have asserted that loan was to be repaid by some of the petitioners in seven annual instalments with interest at the rate of 10.5 per cent per annum. It has been stated that the Bank was not concerned with the work of brick- lining. It is also stated that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 have already prepaid their loans and, therefore, they had no cause of action to file the present writ petition. It is further stated that petitioner No. 7 did not raise any loan but it was his father who had obtained loan from the Bank. Similarly, petitioners No. 8 to 13 are also said to be not debtors of the Bank. It is also pointed out that the petitioners should have resorted to the alternative remedy under the Arbitration Clause of the Loan Agreement and, therefore, they had no authority to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN the result, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are liable to repay the loan which was advanced for implementation of the Scheme from which their land was to derive benefits of irrigation. The petition also is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as an alternative remedy, available under the Arbitration Clause of the Loan Agreement, has not been availed of. Since some of the petitioners have no cause of action and they have either repaid the loan or have not raised the loan at all, on that account also the petition fails.