Appella ppellant State of Punjab & njab & others ents & v. CORAM
Case Details
RSA No.2876-20 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH 107 RSA No.2876-2000 (O&M) RSA Date of Decision:14.10.2025 Date Dass Parshotam Dass ... Appella ppellant State of Punjab & njab & others ents &Respondents Versus CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate and Present: Mr. Ms. Ms. Shivaly Singla, Advocate for the appellant. for t Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, P Mr. for the respondent. for t AG, Punjab ***** *** AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present regular second appeal The ppeal has been filed by the appellan ppellant3 plaintiff assailing sailing the judgment and decree dated dated 04.02.2000 passed by the learn e learned 1st Appellate Co te Court, whereby the appeal preferr referred by the respondents3defendan fendants was allowed and ed and the judgment and decree dated dated 30.07.1997 passed by the learn e learned
Legal Reasoning
trial Court was set aside. The learned trial Court h ourt had decreed the suit of the plaint plaintiff for permanent in t injunction restraining the defend ndants from recovering Rs.36,00 .36,000/- through coercive ercive means such as arrest or attach attachment of property. The learned arned 1st Appellate Court, Court, however, reversed those finding indings and dismissed the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the par For the parties shall hereinafter be referred ferred to as per their respe r respective status before the learned rned Trial court. 3. In brief, the plaintiff i.e. Parshotam In b shotam Dass filed a suit for permane ermanent injunction restrai restraining the defendants including uding the Assistant Collector II Grad I Grade, Nabha from reco m recovering ¹36,000/3 as arrears of ars of land revenue by coercive mea e means PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2876-20 2000 (O&M) -2- such as arrest, de est, detention, or attachment of proper property. The plaintiff had taken <Sul Sullar Gharat= on leas n lease from the Government for th for the year 1988-89 under a writt written agreement and hi and his accounts for the said year were ar were duly settled. Further the plaint ntiff stated that he han he handed over possession of the Gha e Gharat on 31.03.1989, as nothing w hing was outstanding again g against him. Being not a defaulter, h lter, he was allowed to participate in t ate in the auction for the the year 1989-90 held on 22.02.1 2.02.1989, where he was declared t lared the highest bidder an der and deposited ¹36,000/3 as secu s security vide receipt No.86. Howev owever, due to the dilapid dilapidated condition of the Gharat and rat and failure of the authorities to rep to repair it despite repea eated requests, he could not o not operate it after 01.04.1989. T 89. The defendants, how , however, falsely recorded it as run as running in his name and refused fused to refund his secu security amount. Instead, defenda efendant No.2 issued a notice dat ce dated 10.03.1992 throu through the Assistant Collector II G r II Grade for recovery of ¹36,000/ ,000/3 as arrears of land r land revenue. The plaintiff alleged t eged that the said action was based based on incorrect facts m acts mentioned in letter dated 06.12.1 06.12.1991 issued by defendant no.2 t no.2. It was also pleaded leaded that the agreement contained a ined an arbitration clause providing th ding that any such disput dispute could only be decided throu through arbitration. The plaintiff h ntiff had earlier filed a w d a writ petition before this High C igh Court, which was dismissed w sed with liberty to file a ci ile a civil suit before the competent co ent court and plaintiff had also sent leg ent legal notice on 08.06.1 8.06.1992 u/s 80 CPC but defendants ndants did not file any reply to the sam the same and accordingly, ingly, the present suit came to be instit e instituted. 4. Upon notice, defendant contested th Upo sted the suit by filing written stateme tatement taking some prel e preliminary objections. On merit, erit, it was admitted that the water flo ter flour mill (<Sullar Gha Gharat=) was leased to the plaintif laintiff for the year 1988-89, as he w s he was the highest bidde t bidder. It was denied that the plaint plaintiff had handed over possession ssion of the mill on 31. n 31.03.1989 and it was contended tended that the mill remained in h d in his PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2876-20 2000 (O&M) -3- possession up to up to 16.08.1989. Accordingly, he w , he was liable to pay lease rent for th t for that period, after ded ter deducting the security amount. ount. It was further admitted that t that the plaintiff participa rticipated in the auction for the year year 1989-90 on 22.02.1989, deposit eposited ¹36,000/- as se as security, and was declared the d the highest bidder. The defendan fendants contended that r that rent of ¹58,200/- was due for e for the year 1989-90, out of whi f which ¹36,000/- had be had been deposited as security, leavin leaving a balance of ¹22,200/- payab payable by the plaintiff. I ntiff. It was denied that the plaintiff ev ntiff ever requested for repair of the m f the mill or raised any com ny complaint regarding the alleged unf ed unfit condition of the Sullar Gahra Gahratas alleged in the pla the plaint. The defendants also relied o elied on documentary correspondence dence to show that the pla the plaintiff9s claim regarding possess ossession, repair, and refund of secur security were incorrect. 5. The learned trial Court after perusa The perusal of the pleadings and documen cuments on record had framed six issues including relie g relief. To prove his case, the plaint plaintiff examined himsel himself along with his attorney, Bhag , Bhagwan Dass as PW1, and tender tendered documents as Ex as Ex.P1 to P25. The defendants prod ts produced documents marked Ex.D1 Ex.D1 to Ex.D14 in suppo support of their contentions. Upon c pon consideration of the evidence a ence and submissions of le
Legal Reasoning
s of learned counsel, the learned trial rial Court decreed the suit with co ith costs and granted a p a permanent injunction restrainin training the defendants including th ing their officers, from re om recovering ¹36,000/- as arrears o ears of land revenue by coercive mea e means such as arrest, de est, detention, or attachment of propert property, 6. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants Agg dants filed the first appeal. The learn learned 1st Appellate C late Court on re-appreciation of th of the entire evidence held that t that the respondent3plain plaintiff, Parshotam Dass, had failed failed to prove that he had handed ov ded over possession of the of the mill on 31.03.1989 or that the hat the alleged requests for repairs we airs were made and receiv received by the department. The le learned 1st Appellate Court furth further PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2876-20 2000 (O&M) -4- noted that the the defendants had produced suffi sufficient evidence to show that that the possession was was taken through the Tehsildar hsildar, lease charges were correc correctly calculated, and t and the plaintiff could not rely on t y on the arbitration clause for the ye the year 1989-90, as he had not entered into the agreeme reement with the defendants. In view view of this, the learned arned 1st Appellate Court had set asid set aside the judgment and decree of t ee of the learned trial Co al Court and dismissed the suit. H Hence, the present regular seco r second appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Lear ellant, contends that the appellant lant was highest bidder of of the Water Flour Mills at Sangru Sangrur for the year 1989-1990 and al and also deposited the req the requisite security but he was never never handed over possession in prop in proper condition, nor w nor was any formal agreement exec t executed despite confirmation of t n of the auction. Consequ onsequently, the appellant could not d not operate the gharat, which was was in deteriorating co ng condition, and handed over th ver the possession to defendants ants on 31.03.1989. The The learned trial Court, after exa er examining the relevant records, rds, had rightly concluded cluded that the appellant-plaintiff was was entitled to the relief of mandato andatory injunction restra restraining the respondents-defendan fendants from recovering any amo amount without proper d oper determination. The learned 1st Appellate Court, however, illega illegally and arbitrarily di rily dismissed the suit and passed a de d a decree of Rs. 22,000/- in favor of t or of the respondents on b ts on baseless grounds, ignoring the or the oral and documentary evidence, a nce, and awarding relief t elief that was never pleaded nor subst r substantiated. The appellant, therefo herefore, submits that the at the impugned judgment and dec nd decree dated 04.02.2000 is who s wholly unsustainable in ble in law and prays that the same b ame be set aside and the judgment a ent and decree of the lear learned trial Court be restored, whi which is based on correct appreciati reciation d law. of facts and law. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2876-20 2000 (O&M) -5- 8. Learned counsel for the respondents Lear ndents, on the other hand, contends th ends that the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly co tly considered the evidence on reco record, correctly appreci ppreciated the facts, and passed the ju the judgment in accordance with law. th law. It is submitted that d that there is no infirmity or legal g legal ground warranting interference rence by this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel f I ha nsel for the parties and have carefu carefully gone through the gh the record of the learned Courts b ourts below. On a careful perusal of al of the record and submi submissions, it is evident that the lear he learned 1st Appellate Court has righ s rightly appreciated the the facts and law. The appellant, ellant, Parshotam Dass, lawfully h lly held possession of th of the water flour mills for the year 1 year 1988-89 and was the highest bidd st bidder in the auction tion held for the year 1989-90 and d and deposited the requisite security curity of Rs.36,000/-. The The dispute relates to the lease mon e money for the period from 01.04.19 .04.1989 to 16.08.1989. T 989. The appellant has failed to prov o prove that the possession was hand handed over to the respo respondent-department on 01.04.198 4.1989, rather the possession was tak as taken over from the pla the plaintiff through the Tehsildar, Su ar, Sunam, on 16.12.1989, whereas re reas rent was charged for t d for the period from 01.04.1989 to 16 16.08.1989 i.e., the period for whi or which the mill remaine mained operational and the balance lance amount of ¹22,200/- was righ s rightly recoverable as a e as arrears. Moreover, in his lette s letter dated 19.08.1989, the plain plaintiff himself admitted mitted that since the SDO, Balad, Balad, had taken over possession ssion on 16.08.1989, he w , he was not liable to pay lease mone money beyond that date, thus, the sta the stand of the plaintiff intiff that he was not in possession session of the water flour mills w.e w.e.f. 01.04.1989 was u was unsubstantiated. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and c In v s and circumstances, this Court finds finds no ground to interf interfere with the judgment and d and decree passed by the learned arned 1st PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2876-20 2000 (O&M) -6- Appellate Court Court and the same is upheld. Conse Consequently, the regular second appe d appeal issed. stands dismissed. 11. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, Misc
Decision
if any, also stands disposed of. (AM AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE WAL) October 14, 202 Pankaj* , 2025 soned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh