Non-compliance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act regarding the payment of land-revenue and the conduct of sales renders the sale proceedings a nullity. The civil court has jurisdiction to decide matters where the revenue authorities have acted without jurisdiction.

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.

1. This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, dated 19.02.1971.

2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff was that Narain Singh was a Lambardar of village Hazarasinghwala in district Ferozepore. He himself was residing in another village. Therefore, Hardit Singh had been appointed as a substitute Lambardar for him. The said Hardit Singh was removed on 8.11.1957 and Sardara Singh s/o Dharam Singh, the plaintiff, was appointed as such in his place. It is alleged by Sardara Singh that in fact he did not work as a substitute Lambardar and did not collect any land-revenue. According to him, it was the Patwari of the village who was collecting and depositing the land-revenue though he used to obtain his thumb-impressions on several documents. It is stated by him that the arrears of land-revenue went upto Rs. 40,000.00. He was challenged u/s. 409, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount. The Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, acquitted him on 22.02.1965. In the meantime, he states he made representations to the authorities for settling the accounts by demanding receipts from the defaulters in proof of their having paid the land-revenue. The authorities did not take any action on his representations. His land, on the other hand, was auctioned on the ground that an amount of Rs. 12,635.40 was due from him on 18.01.1965, for a consideration of Rs. 11,780.00. It was purchased by defendants 2 to 6. The sale was confirmed on 31.02.1966, by the Commissioner.

3. According to the plaintiff, he was not a defaulter in respect of the payment of the land-revenue and, therefore, the proceedings for recovery of arrears of land-revenue by sale of his property were illegal and without jurisdiction. He further alleged that the auction of the land had not been conducted in accordance with law and a number of irregularities had been committed therein and, therefore, it was not binding on him. He consequently instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the Punjab State and other defendants praying that the defendants be restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants who, inter alia, pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Sec. 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that the plaintiff was a defaulter and that the sale of the property in dispute was valid. Defendants 2 to 6 also pleaded that they had paid the price in full for the property. Consequently, they had become full owners thereof.

5. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was a duly appointed Sarbrah Lambardar: that he was a defaulter with regard to the arrears of land-revenue: that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the sale of land in dispute in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 6 was not fraudulent or illegal. Consequently, it dismissed the suit.

6. The plaintiff Sardara Singh went up in appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, against the judgment of the trial Court. Sardara Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were substituted in his place as appellants. The appellants, in view of the fact that defendants 2 to 6 took possession of the land in dispute after the decision of the suit, amended the plaint with the permission of the Court and made a prayer for possession of the land. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that Sardara Singh deceased was not a defaulter, that the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 6 was fraudulent and illegal and that the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. He, however, affirmed the findings of the trial Court to the effect that he was appointed a Sarbrah Lambardar and that his duties were to collect the land-revenue. He consequently accepted the appeal, set aside the judgmen