High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Prabhagiya Laungik Prabandhak & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 673 of 2004  RD-AH 13408 (2 August 2007)
Court No. 27
Second Appeal No. 673 of 2004
Radhey Shyam Sharma ........................ Plaintiff-Appellant
Prabhagiya Laungik Prabandhak
Uttar Pradesh Van Nigam Shivalik
Deharadun & Others ......................... Defendant-Respondents
Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard Sri Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
This is plaintiff's appeal having lost from both the Courts below.
The plaintiff-appellant challenged the recovery of Rs.37,472.50 paise as arrears of land revenue issued by the Collector, Dehradun at the instance by the Regional Manager, Gadhwal Kshetra of Uttar Pradesh Van Nigam, Dehradun. The recovery was issued as the plaintiff-appellant is said to have defaulted in completing the contract granted to him.
The Court of first instance as well as the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit as barred by Section 287-A and 330 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as an Act).
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the suit is not so barred as held by the Courts below. The recovery issued is illegal and before issuing the recovery the department ought to have raised dispute before the arbitrator in terms of the agreement
Undisputedly the aforesaid amount is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue as per the procedure prescribed under Chapter X of the Act.
Section 330 of the Act provides as under :-
"[330. Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters.- Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of-
(a) any entry in or omission from a Compensation Assessment Roll ; or
(b) any order passed under part I of this Act ; or
(c ) the assessment or collection of land revenue under Chapter X or the recovery of any sum of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue.]"
The aforesaid provision is very clear. It expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of collection of land revenue as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Chapter X of the Act. Undisputedly, under the contract it has clearly been provided that any amount due and payable under the contract shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the Act. It is settled legal position that though the Civil Court has plannery power under Section 9 C.P.C. to take cognizance of all suits except for those whose jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly prohibited where the amount is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Chapter X of the Act. Accordingly the suit was not maintainable and was not cognizable by the Civil Court. In view of the above, I do not find any error of law in the judgment and orders of the Courts below in dismissing the suit as barred by Section 330 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the entire arrears as claimed have been deposited by the appellant under protest. In case that be so, the plaintiff-appellant has an effective remedy under Section 287-A of the Act to institute a suit against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of the said amount if it has been wrongly recovered or to invoke the arbitration clause in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract as may be advised.
The appeal lacks merit and involves no question of law as such is dismissed with the above observations.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.