Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 640
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.C. Gupta, J.
Bhagat Ram - Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat (Sabha), Tibba Nangal - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 1980 of 1980.
Decided On : 1 June, 2001
For the Appellant :Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of the Gram Panchayat to recover time-barred amounts as arrears of land revenue under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Headnote:
Panchayat - Recovery of Arrears of Land Revenue - Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 86, Section 92 - The court discussed the competence of the Gram Panchayat to recover a time-barred amount as arrears of land revenue under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It interpreted the provisions of Section 86 and Section 92 and held that the Collector is competent to recover any sum due under the Act as arrears of land revenue, even if the amount is time-barred. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from recovering an amount of Rs. 1,500 as arrears of land revenue, which he alleged to have paid but was not accounted for by the Gram Panchayat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not paid the amount to the Sarpanch, and the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. The court also held that the recovery could be effected as arrears of land revenue, even if the claim was time-barred.
Issues: The issues included the payment of the amount by the plaintiff, the maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, and the recovery of the suit amount as arrears of land revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the appellant had not paid the amount and the competence of the Gram Panchayat to recover the time-barred amount as arrears of land revenue under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Gram Panchayat was competent to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, despite it being time-barred.
K.C. Gupta, J. - This Regular Second Appeal is directed by Bhagat Ram, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25.10.1979, whereby suit for permanent injunction was dismissed, was up-held.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Gram Panchayat (Sabha), Tibba Nangal, respondent No. 1, is the owner of common land situated in Village Tibba Nangal. The Bagar grass, which had grown on some portion of the common land was sold to the appellant in an open auction for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that although he had paid Rs. 1,500/-, the auction money, to Ram Ditta, Sarpanch, in the presence of Paras Ram, Misha Ram and Santu, which amount the Sarpanch had utilised for the purchase of utensils but the same was not accounted for and the Panchayat had taken steps to recover that amount by means of coercive method i.e. as arrears of land revenue, to which the respondents were not entitled. With these allegations, suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,500/- through coercive method was filed.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They stated that no amount had been paid by the appellant to respondent No. 2, Ram Ditta, Sarpanch as alleged and further the utensils were purchased with the funds provided by the villagers and not with the Panchayat funds. They denied, that the claim was time barred or recovery could not be effected as arrears of land revenue. They also stated that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. However, respondent No. 3 did not contest the suit. Accordingly, the following issues were struck on 28.7.1977 :-
"1. Whether the plaintiff has made the payment of the amount of Rs. 1500/- to the defendant No. ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable and competent in the present form ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not triable by this Court ? OPD
4. What is the effect of non-service of notice on the defendant before filing this suit ? OPP
5. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
6. Whether the recovery of the suit amount can be effected as arrears of land revenue ?
7. Whether the claim of the Panchayat is barred by time ? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
9. Relief."
5-6. The parties adduced their evidence. The Sub Judge Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib, after hearing counsel for the parties vide judgment dated 25.10.1979, dismissed the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,500/- as arrears of land revenue by holding under Issue No. 1 that the appellant had failed to prove that he had paid Rs. 1,500/- to Ram Ditta, Sarpanch on 4.8.1972 in the presence of Paras Ram, Misha Ram and Santu. Issues No. 2 and 4 were decided against the respondents and it was held that the suit was maintainable in the present form and the non-service of notice on the respondents before filing the suit did not effect the validity of the suit. Under issue No. 5, it was held that this suit was properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. Under Issues No. 6 and 7, it was held that the recovery could be effected from the appellant as arrears of land revenue and even if the claim was time barred, then also there is no bar for the recovery of the amount as land revenue. It was also held that the plea of limitation was not available to the appellant. Under Issue No. 8, it was held that the appellant is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar, vide judgment dated 8.5.1980.
8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the pla
