NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Rajouri in File No: 11/C, dated 12th May, 1988. By means of impugned judgment and decree a declaration has been granted that the demand notices dated 26th December, 1986 and 21st April, 1987 issued by the Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Nowshera against the respondent are null and void because Chairman was not competent to issue such notices. In order to properly appreciate the submissions urged in support of this appeal, few facts need to be noticed.

(2.) RESPONDENT , Bharat Bhushan (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration simplicitor to the effect that the notices dated 26th December, 1986 and 21st April, 1987 may be declared to be ultravires an amount contained therein as barred by limitation. Further case of the plaintiff in the suit filed against the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as defendant) was that he was dharat contractor for the year 1977 - 78 in the limits of Notified Area Committee, Nowshera. In terms of agreement entered into between the parties, plaintiff was to realize dharat on medicines, diesel, petrol & liquor, besides other items. When plaintiff started action for realising the dharat a writ was filed by the persons concerned in the High Court and a stay order was passed in favour of such persons. It was also the case of the plaintiff that he was assured by the defendant that in case of non -payment of dharat by the persons who were selling the aforesaid items, while adjusting him, his losses would also be taken care of in respect of these three items.

(3.) IT appears that Chairman, Notified Area Committee issued notice on 26th December, 1986 which was followed by a declaration on 21st April, 1987 in accordance with the provisions of Section 101 of Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2008 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Legality of these notices had been questioned by the plaintiff in the suit wherein decree in question came to be passed. This Suit was contested and resisted by the defendant pleading bar of Sections 57, 57 -B, 100 and 106 of the Act, besides denying the claim of the plaintiff on facts.