Back
2007(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 3121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
RSA No. 1119 of 1995
Swaraj Engines Limited
v.
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation
{Decided on 05/09/2007}
(i) Since the mechanism under the Act has been provided as an alternative mode of speedier recovery of public dues, the intention of the legislature seems to be that such matters should not be dealt with by the Civil Court.
(ii) Therefore, the suit for recovery in fact, means any suit where the recovery of the sum recoverable is an issue and if it is so, then the Civil Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(iii) In the absence of express bar, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred in view of the mechanism contemplated under the Act.
(B) Punjab Pubic Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1983, Section 4—Recovery of enhanced compensation—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Barred—Allottment of land by corporation to the plaintiff—As per clause 2 of the letter of allotment the plaintiff was to pay additional price of the plot in case of enhancement of compensation—Defendant corporation is a corporation notified under 2(C) of the Act—Compensation amount was enhanced by the Courts—Corporation raising such demands—Whether the provisions of Punjab Public Money (Recovery of Dues) 1983 are applicable in relation to the transaction between the parties? YES—Held; The Managing Director can send the certificate to the Collector to recover it as a land revenue mentioning the sum due arrived at after notice to the defaulter so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. (Para 17)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Pleadings—Issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not framed—Effect of--Held; Once a question has been specifically raised and dealt with, the pleading or the non-framing of issues, loses significance. (Para 11)
(D) Punjab Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1983, Section 4—Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Recovery of enhanced compensation from the allottee as per allotment letter—Plaintiff filing suit for injunction challenging demand raised by corporation—Trial Court dismissing the suit on the ground of jurisdiction—Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred impliedly or expressly in terms of section 4 of the Act? YES—Held, Interalia,
(i) Since the right and the forum has been provided under the Act, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
(ii) Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred.
(iii) Since, the recovery is being effected under a statute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred.
(iv) Where a particular remedy is provided to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum in that manner and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excluded.
(E) Word and Phrases--Doctrine no man can be a judge in his own cause—It can be applied only to cases where the person concerned has a personal interest or has himself already done some act or take a decision in the matter concerned.
Hemant Gupta, J.:- The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant recovering a sum of Rs.74,12,411.58p was dismissed on a preliminary Issue No.2, holding that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court.
2. The brief facts, as pleaded by the appellant, out of which the present appeal arises are that the State of Punjab acquired 157.99 acres of land in village Kumbra, Kambala, Kambali and Chilla, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. Out of such land, 80 acres of land was transferred to the defendant i.e. Punjab State. Industrial Development Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) by the State Government. Land measuring 12.8 acres out of the land transferred to the defendant was allotted to the plaintiff vide letter of allotment dated 15.1.1988. The plaintiff was required to pay a total sum of Rs.37,34,554/- towards the cost of the plot including development charges. The possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff invested Rs.4.40 crores on the construction of the building and installing machinery, equipment and various facilities such as setting up of diesel storage tanks and generating set etc. The commercial production started in January, 1989.
3. On 23.8.1990, the plaintiff received a notice from the defendant calling upon to remit an additional amount of Rs.8,40,124/- as development charges. The said amount was paid on 27.12.1990. On 30.7.1992, the defendant issued a show cause notice calling upon the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.51,57,334/- towards enhancement in the cost acquisition of land. No details of calculations were provided by the defendant. The plaintiff sought the details vide letter dated 23.9.1992 as to on what account, the enhanced amount was being claimed. But no reply has been received from the defendant. Thus, it was alleged that the demand raised is absolutely arbitrary, without jurisdiction in as much as no justification has been furnished by the defendant to claim the amount from the plaintiff. It is also pointed out that subsequently a registered notice dated 27.1.1993 was received from the defendant-Corporation that the compensation for the land in Phase-IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali, has been enhanced and the Corporation has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 3,05,76,197.78 and that the plaintiffs share in the above mentioned enhanced compensation works out to be Rs.74,12,411.58 as on 22.7.1993, subject to further enhancement, if any. It is alleged that such demand is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable as no details of claim have been furnished nor the appellant could be asked to pay the compensation of the entire land.
4. In the written statement, the defendant by way of preliminary objection pointed out that in Clause-2 of the letter of allotment, it is contemplated that the price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to actual measurement of plot, cost of development and cost of acquisition of land by the Industries Department and in case of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land of the Sector in question, by the Court or otherwise, the plaintiff is to pay additional price of the plot. Clause-2 of the letter of allotment, reads as under:
“Clause-2: The above price of the plot is subject to variation with to the actual reference measurement of the plot, cost of development and cost of acquisition of land by the Industries Department. In case of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land of this Sector by the Court of otherwise, you shall have to pay the additional price of the plot, if any, determined by this Corporation within 30 days from the date of demand.”
Subsequently, a conveyance deed was also executed in favour of the plaintiff on 12.12.1988. Clause-2(ii) of the conveyance deed reads as under:
“2 (ii). Pay the Government through the Corporation in cash any additional am
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
