RSA No. 901 of 2016 (O & M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 901 of 2016 (O & M)

Date of Decision:-03.04.2017

Rohtash Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Haryana State through Collector, District Mahendergarh at Narnaul and

others

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

Present:-

Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate

for the appellant.

HARI PAL VERMA J.

C.M. No.2465-C of 2016

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 16 days

in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA No.901 of 2016 (O & M)

The appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff')

has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree

dated 13.8.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby

Vijay Asija

2017.04.24 10:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 901 of 2016 (O & M)

-2-

his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2013 passed by

learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul, was dismissed.

Briefly stated, the plaintiff, who remained Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat Bihali from the year 2000 to 2005, had filed a suit for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from seeking any kind of recovery or

initiating proceedings for the recovery, on the basis of impugned notice

bearing No.2224 dated 25.8.2005. It is alleged that on account of collusion

of the present Gram Panchayat with Gram Secretary, a false report was

prepared, wherein it has been shown that amount of wheat to the tune of

159 quintal 92 kilograms was outstanding towards the plaintiff, having

value of Rs.87,956/- and cash of Rs.11,412/-. Thus, total amount of

Rs.99,368/- was lying outstanding with the plaintiff. Plaintiff neither

deposited the same in the account of Panchayat nor handed over to the

current Sarpanch at the time of relinquishing the charge. The allegations

are completely based on concocted facts as entries in the muster roll and

stock register are duly established that the wheat was distributed among the

inhabitants of the village and no amount was outstanding against the

plaintiff. The plaintiff has submitted the reply to the impugned notice dated

25.8.2005 and has prayed for dropping of the recovery proceedings against

him. However, no opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff, but still

on the basis of concocted facts, proceedings for recovery have been

initiated against him. At the time of handing over the charge to the

Panchayat, the plaintiff had requested to defendant No.4 i.e. Gram

Panchayat of Village Bihali to take the muster roll and stock register from

Vijay Asija

2017.04.24 10:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 901 of 2016 (O & M)

-3-

him, but defendant No.4 had refused to do so. The plaintiff had devotedly

worked for the welfare of the village, but despite that the impugned notice

dated 25.8.2005 has been issued giving show cause to him for the recovery

of aforesaid amount.

Since the prayer of the plaintiff was not acceeded to, plaintiff

was left with no alternative but to file the present suit.

Defendants No.1 to 3 filed their written statement taking

preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation, concealment of

true and material facts from the Court. It is submitted that defendant No.2-

Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO), Ateli Nangal, Tehsil

Narnaul had sent a letter bearing No.2098 dated 11.8.2005 to defendants

No.1 and 3 (i.e. the Collector, District Mohindergarh at Narnaul and the

Naib Tehsildar, Mandi Ateli respectively) for recovery of Rs.99,368/- from

the plaintiff as arrears under the land revenue. Accordingly, defendant No.1

had issued a recovery certificate bearing No.122/2006 for the purpose of

recovering the amount from the plaintiff and proceedings in that regard