NARENDER JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19 -12 -1972 of Jaswant Singh J (as he then was) in exercise of his original jurisdiction in civil suit No. 14 of 1967. The learned judge decided issue No. 4 which related to the jurisdiction of the court to try tile suit. He held that the suit is not entertainable by the civil court and accordingly he directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presenting it before a proper forum. Aggrieved by this judgment, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY speaking the case of the plaintiff is that the then Governor of Kashmir (as he was then called and now the collector) by his order dated 15th Bhadoon, 2005 Bk. corresponding to August 28, 1943 issued directions to the Tehsildars of the valley to attach the Shali produce of the proprietary land held by Smt. Dewani Vedhawati and deliver the same to the Food Control Department of the Kashmir Valley and to withhold the Shali Rabi advances to her on the ground that huge arrears of land revenue were outstanding against her estate. in compliance with and pursuant to these directions of the Governor, the respective Tehsildars of the valley attached and realised the share of the produce of the estate of Dewani Sahiba for the years 2005 and 2006 Bk and delivered the same directly to the Food Control Department. Thereafter the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act came into force and under section 9 of that Act all arrears of advance payable under any enactment Government Order or Rule in respect of any land transferred under the provisions of section 5 of the Said Act stood remitted. According to this Section the arrears of land revenue outstanding against the estate of Dewani Sahiba stood remitted. A notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was therefore served on the Government claiming remission and refund of the arrears of land revenue realized by the revenue agency from the tenants. The Government accepted this claim on the ground that she was entitled to the benefit of Section 9(b) of the Big Landed Estate Abolition Act. The Government accordingly directed payment of the price of her share of the produce for the aforesaid years. These payments were to be made to her subject to the production of the receipt by the estate holder. This order was later on modified and the Government on her representation gave further concession to Dewani Sahiba authorising her to be paid the amount by the Food Control Department after proper verification without the production of if any receipts by her staff, According to the plaintiff the produce of the lands attached was assessed by the revenue authorities at 8032 Khirwars and odd. According to the Chakla rate the price of the share of Shali and maize, realised by the revenue agency from her tenants under the order of the then Governor and delivered to the Kashmir Valley Food Control Department by the revenue agency was assessed at Rs. 1,60,568/ -. The plaintiff further alleged that he was the legatee under the will and was competent to sue the Government. Even when the Government accepted the claim of the landlord, it did not make any payments although the plaintiff made a number of representations to the Government. The Government thereafter resiled from its previous position and averred that the matter was under examination and that the Shali and Maize realised and delivered to the Kashmir Valley Food Control Department was valued only at Rs. 35,310/ -. But even this amount was not paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore refund of Rs. 1,60,563/ - (principal and Rs. 39,437/ - (interest) total Rs. two lacs.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by; the defendants inter alia on twin grounds; that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try this suit: and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to bring the suit. These two pleas were treated as preliminary issues in the case. Without recording any evidence in the case, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hear arguments on these preliminary issues. On issue No. 3 he found that the plaintiff had locus standi to maintain the suit. However relying upon section 139 (2) xiv of the Land Revenue Act he on the language of the section found that as the claim of the plaintiff arose and was in connection with the collection of the arrears of land revenue, such a claim was barred from the cognizance of the civil Court. He accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presenting it before a proper forum.