Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naib Tehsildar/A.C.Ii Grade Nissing ... vs Harbans Singh on 19 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA No.2232 of 1995 -1- 2024:PHHC:052922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
206 RSA No.2232 of 1995
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Naib Tehsildar/A.C. IInd Grade, Nissing & Anr. ....Appellants
VERSUS
Harbans Singh (deceased) through LRs ....Respondents
206-1 RSA No.2378 of 1995 (O&M)
Naib Tehsildar/A.C. IInd Grade, Nissing & Anr. ....Appellants
VERSUS
Harbans Singh (deceased) through LRs ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Narinder Singh Behgal, AAG Haryana
for the appellants in both the appeals.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate
for the respondent in both the appeals.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. This order will dispose off both the above-captioned appeals.
The appeals have been preferred by the State challenging the common
judgment and decree dated 08.04.1995 passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiff-respondent had approached the Trial Court by
filing a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellants
herein from recovering a sum of Rs.24,000/- as also from attaching his
property. It is the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that the plaintiff-
respondent was appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar of village Mehmal Throta
on 08.03.1972 in place of his father Labh Singh. It is further the case set up
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2232 of 1995 -2- 2024:PHHC:052922
that the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Nissing i.e.
defendant-appellant No.1 herein demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (in Civil
Suit No. 805 of 1989) and an amount of Rs.24,000/- (in Civil Suit No.806 of
1989) from the plaintiff-respondent as irrigation dues from 1975 upto date.
It was further the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent had
been depositing the amount regularly and that there was no amount due.
Joint written statement was filed by the defendant-appellants herein. It was
the stand taken by the defendant-appellants that the plaintiff-respondent had
been collecting the land revenue and from 1975 upto Rabi 1988 and the total
amount accrued on account of collection of land revenue from various
stakeholders was Rs.3,18,383.90 ps., out of which the plaintiff-respondent
had deposited a sum of Rs.2,24,618.02 ps. and the remaining amount was
due to the tune of Rs.82,559.84 ps.
3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
claimed as alleged ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD
4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction ? OPD
5. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC has been
served upon the defendant, if so its effect ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPP
7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for court
fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
8. Relief.
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2232 of 1995 -3- 2024:PHHC:052922
4. The Trial Court vide judgments and decrees dated 28.10.1994
dismissed the suits. Aggrieved by the same, appeals were filed by the
plaintiff-respondent. The appeals filed by the plaintiff-respondent were
allowed and both the suits were disposed off vide common judgment and
decree dated 08.04.1995. Hence, the present regular second appeals.
5. Learned State counsel would contend that the amount of
Rs.82,559.84 ps. was due and the plaintiff-respondent had defaulted in
depositing the said amount.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would
contend that there was not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the
amount was due. Rather, the plaintiff-respondent had brought on record
Ex.P1 to Ex.P64, which were Dakhla Forms, showing the plaintiff-
respondent as depositor of the land revenue.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case the only evidence brought on the record by
the appellant-State was the Khatauni Mal to state that the amount was due.
No further evidence was led by the defendant-appellants besides the
Khatauni Mal. The First Appellate Court held as under :
"9. The learned trial Judge has taken a wrong view by
holding that the plaintiff (hereinafter alluded as the
appellant) was defaulter and an amount of Rs.82,566.49
ps., as shown in Khatauni Mal was due towards him.
The only evidence taken into consideration by the trial
Court in arriving at a decision that the amount was due,
was the Khatauni Mal. The oral evidence led by the
defendants (hereinafter alluded as the respondents) is the
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2232 of 1995 -4- 2024:PHHC:052922
statement of Joginder Kumar AW-l (DWl) an employee of
office of Tehsildar, Sales, Karnal. It has been perused
minutely. His material statement is only to the effect that
as per Khatauni Mal, an amount of Rs.82,566.49 paise
were due towards the appellant. This figures has also
been shown in Khatauni Mal. By mentioning this figures
in the Khatauni Mal it cannot be said that this amount
was taken by the appellant from the various land holder
and he did not deposit the same in the Government
Treasury. This figure shown in Khatauni Mal is infact the
figure which was due towards various landholders as
irrigation dues. It has been held in Land Revenue Rule 2
that Lambardar shall acknowledge every payment
received by him in the book of the landowners and
tenants. No such evidence has been led by the
respondents to prove from any piece of evidence that the
appellant had collected the irrigation dues from land
owners and in token of that he had acknowledged the
same in the books of the land owners. No complaint from
any land owner has been placed on record to prove that
any one out of them had given the amount to the
appellant but he did not deposit the same. It may be true,
rather it is, of course, true that as per Khatauni Mal, the
total irrigation dues accrues towards the various land
holders was to the tune of Rs. 82,566.49 paise but it
cannot be read that the amount was due towards the
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2232 of 1995 -5- 2024:PHHC:052922
appellant. It could have been due towards the appellant,
had it been proved by the respondents that the amount in
question was taken by the appellant from the land
holders and he did not deposit the same. The respondents
have failed to prove this fact by placing on record any
evidence. The approach of the learned trial Judge was
fallacious when the Khatauni Mal was read as a piece
evidence to prove that this amount of Rs.82,566.49 paise
was due towards the appellant. To prove this fact to the
hilt, it was the prima-duty of the respondents to place on
record oral as well as documentary evidence that the
appellant had taken this amount from the land holders
but as has been pointed out earlier that no such evidence
was placed on record, so to fasten the liability on the
appellant merely on the basis of Khatauni Mal would not
be justified. This being so, the finding of the trial Court
on issue No. 1 is set aside. It is held that the appellant
was entitled to the relief claimed by him."
9. The First Appellate Court while rejecting the evidence
produced by the defendant-appellants had held that the figures shown in the
Khatauni Mal were the figures which were due from the various land owners
as irrigation dues. Khatauni Mal did not depict that the amount had not been
deposited by the plaintiff-respondent and hence the First Appellate Court has
rightly held that in the absence of any evidence it could not be proved that
the amount was not collected or deposited. No other argument has been
raised.
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2232 of 1995 -6- 2024:PHHC:052922
10. In view of the above, the present appeals, which are wholly
devoid of any merit, are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
19.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
