STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GULAM AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil misc. appeals involving similar questions of law and facts are disposed by this judgment. Appeal No. 202 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed son of Haji Peerji is against the judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1976 of learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi and the other appeal No. 203 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Akbar son of Gulam Ahmed is against judgment the and decree, dated July 29, 1976 of the same court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts relating to the State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed are these. Gulam Ahmed filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Abu Road for permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and the District Forest Officer, Sirohi for restraining them to recover the amount alleged to be due against him for wrongful felling of the trees. The allegations contained in the plaint were these. Plaintiff Gulam Ahmed took contract for the manufacture of coal from the State of Rajasthan for the year 1966 -67 in forest area namely 'Kumbha coupe matar mata' in Compartment No. 20 -A for a sum of RS. 60, 100/ -. The plaintiff took possession of the area on 19 -11 -66. He could cat the wood and manufacture the coal up to 30 -4 -66 and remove manufactured coal by 30 -6 -66. The possession of the said area was handed over to the Forest Range Officer, Sirohi and foliar -book was also delivered on 30 -6 -66. The plaintiff had deposited RS. 6.010/ -as earnest money for the contract. The State of Rjasthan did not return the earnest money and, therefore, civil suit No. 66 of 1969 for the recovery of the same was filed in the court of Additional District Judge, Sirohi which was transferred to the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sirohi. The District Forest Officer, Sirohi issued a notice on 19 -10 -68 to the plaintiff that he has not tendered the resignation according to the rules and some damage was caused to the surrounding forest area for which, he was liable to pay the damages in the sum of Rs. 30, 722/ -. The plaintiff suitably replied to the notice and denied his liability to pay any damages and furher asserted that the possession of the forest area was handed over on 30 -6 -66. Some more correspondence was exchanged between the parties. It appears that a notice under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (here in -after referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the plaintiff by the Tehsildar, Pindwara for the recovery of Rs. 30, 722/ -. It is further alleged that the said recovery is illegal and the defendants, be restrained from effecting this recovery. The defendants denied the allegations contained in the plaint and further asserted that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It appears that before the issues were framed, the suit of the plaintiff pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Sirohi was decreed Learned Munsif framed several issues and the following issues were decided as preliminary issues:

(3.) IT is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellate court was grossly in error in observing that the process of recovery under Section 256(a) of the Act has been not started at the time of the institution of the suit, and, therefore, this suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff, in para 8 of the plaint had specifically stated that a notice under Section 256 of the Act was issued by the Tehsildar, Pindwara to him for recovery of Rs. 33,722/ -. Once the process of recovery had started, no court was competent to grant any injunction because of the provisions of the Act. The contention was substantiated by the observations made in Ratanlal v. State of Rajasthan 1973 R.L.W. 437.