Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Satwant Kaur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 11 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR298
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, C.J.
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as follows :--
A land measuring 690 Acres, 5 Kanals and 14 Marias situated in Village Kang Khurd was Banjar. Under the Punjab Reclamation of Land Act 1959, Mohinder Singh, moved an application that the land be reclaimed. He agreed to pay reclamation charges as assessed by the Agriculture Department. The State of Punjab reclaimed the land and thereafter issued a notice on 18th of June. 1959 to Mohinder Singh that the land has been reclaimed and that he was required to take possession of the same. A demand notice was also issued to him to pay Rs. 37787.20 in eight years i.e. in 16 half yearly installments. The first installment was due on 1.1.1961
2. Mohinder Singh filed a suit No. 219 of 1966 in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jullundur, against the State of Punjab for a declaration that the State of Punjab is not entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from Mohinder Singh as reclamation charges etc, for alleged reclamation of the land in dispute This suit was decreed by the trial Court on 15th March, 1967. In this suit the trial Court did not go in the merits of the issues but, decreed the suit on the sole technical ground that since reclamation was done before the 1959 Act came into force, as such it was held that the 1959 Act was not applicable and consequently the notices issued by the State of Punjab under Section 9 of the 1959 Act were without authority of law and consequently, it was held that the notices were bad in law. The trial Court categorically observed in the said judgment that since the reclamation was not done under the Act in question, recovery under the 1959 Act cannot be made and the State of Punjab must sue for the amount.
3. After the decision in the above mentioned suit, the State of Punjab filed suit No. 101 of 1969 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 47,530 99 The break up, of which is as followed : -
Rs. 31,074.32 as Reclamation charges.
Rs. 8,799 76 as Interest, and Rs. 7,656 91 as Penal interest.
This suit was filed by the State of Punjab in the Court of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Jullundur The suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Jullundur by judgment dated 28th April 1972. Against the said judgment Regular First Appeal No. 333 of 1972 was filed by the State of Punjab in the High Court While the appeal was being heard in this Court, the learned Single Judge by his order dated September 9, l98i remitted the matter under Order 31 Rule 25 to the trial Court to lead evidence on the question as to what was the loss suffered by the State Government as before the trial Court, no evidence was led in this regard.
4. The trial Court sent its report on 5th December 1983. The matter was thereafter again head by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by an Order dated 7th March, 1984, set aside the judgment of the trial Court, decreed the suit of the State of Punjab for the recovery of Rs. 31074.32. The learned Single Judge further direc*ed that on the principal amount, the State would be entitled on the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 18th June, 1959 till the date of payment thereof. During the pendency of Regular First Appeal, Mohinder Singh died. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7th March, 1984, has been challenged by Satwant Kaur and other co-owners of the land in dispute in the present appeal. The appellants all belong to the family of Mohinder Singh.
5. We have heard Shri M. L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri H. S. Riar, Additional Advocate General, for the State of Punjab.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended firstly that the suit out of which the appeal arises was barred by resjudicata in view of the decision in suit No. 219 of 1966. The second submission was that, the Deputy Director was not authorised to file the suit and as such it cannot be said that the plaint has been signed and verified by the proper person. It was next contended that suit was filed on the basis of special contracts and the learned Single Judge has erred in making out a new case which was not pleaded and erred in decreeing the suit on the basis of quasi contract Lastly, it was urged that the sons of Mohinder Singh being minors when they made a request for reclamation, the suit against them could not be decreed as the contract was void in law.
7. In so far as the first question of resjudicata is concerned, as already mentioned above, suit No. 219 of 1966 was decreed purely on the technical ground that the notice which had been issued under the 1959 Act was wholly invalid as the reclamation bad been done prior to 1959. No other question was decided on merits. On the other hand in the judgment it was categorically stated that the remedy available to the State of Punjab was to sue for the amount in a regular Court This exactly what has been done by the State of Punjab In the circumstances, the plea of resjudicata taken by the Appellant is wholly misconceived There was no such decision given in suit No. 219 of 1986 which could possibly operate as resjudicata against the State of Punjab On the other hand, the suit in respect of which the present Appeal arises, has been filed in pursuance of the judgment in suit No. 219 of 1966. In the circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the suit is not barred by resjudicata is in our opinion a correct view of law.
8. The second contention taken by the learned counsel for the Appellants is purely on the technical ground namely that Deputy Director of Agriculture had no authority to file the suit. Before the learned Single Judge, the original record was produced containing the letter dated 20th January, 1968, by the Governor of Punjab who had authorised the riling of the suits against the defendants for the recovery of reclamation charges. This authority was given to the Director, Agriculture. The Director, Agriculture bad allowed Mukhtiar Singh, Deputy Director, Agriculture to institute the suit as Mukhtiar Singh was incharge of the Reclamation Scheme, and was well conservant with the facts of the case. It is to be further noted that in fact the plaint was signed by the Government pleader and only the verification was done by Mukhtiar Singh, Deputy Director, Agriculture, and as such it cannot be held that the suit was not properly filed or verified as required by law. The said contention is also in our opinion without substance
9. In regard to the third contention raised by the learned counsel, it may be stated that Section 70 of the Contract Act clearly provides that where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him not intending to do so gratuitously and as such other person enjoy the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make the compensation to the former in respect of or to restore thing so done or delivered. Admittedly, the State of Punjab did the reclamation work on the request of appellant himself. It was done on the specific agreement between the parties that appellants will have to pay for the same. After reclamation the land was given over to the appellants and they enjoyed the benefit of the same, in the circumstances, the appellants are liable to pay the amount sought to be recovered by the State of Punjab in view of the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act.
10 Section 70 of the Contract Act came up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1218 and it was held that even in case the contract is void the provisions of Section 70 can de invoked. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken in this regard by the learned Single Judge is correct even if the contract is void as urged by the appellant even then he is liable to pay compensation to the Government for the work got done by him from the Government his own request.
11. The third contention consequently raised by the appellant also has no force.
12. In regard to the last contention raised by the appellant, admittedly, the land in dispute was joint and the major co-sharers got the required land reclaimed for their benefit and for the benefit of the minor co-sharers and consequently each one of them are liable to compensate the State Government jointly and severally
13. In the circumstances the fourth submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants in our opinion does not have any force.
14. In the end, learned counsel, for the appellants has urged that in the interest of justice, the rate of interest awarded by the learned Single Judge, namely at 6% per annum be reduced. His submission is that he had won suit No. 219 of 1966 It was not his fault that he did not pay the amount then. The suit which was filed by the State of Punjab subsequently was dismissed in favour of the appellants and consequently they were not liable to pay the amount. The appellants immediately after the decree was passed by the learned Single Judge in this Court, paid the amount. The learned counsel has further urged that neither under the1 provisions of the 1959 Act nor under the agreement he was liable to pay the interest and consequently taking an overall view of the special circumstances of this case, appellants were not liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum It would be too hard on the appellants. In our opinion this submission of the learned counsel has substance.
15. We have considered the matter in detail and we are of the opinion that the interests of justice will be served in the special facts and circumstances of this case if the appellant is directed to pay interest at the rate of 3% per annum. The decree passed by the learned Single Judge is modified only to the extent that instead of the interest of 6% the appellants will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum from the dates mentioned by the learned Single Judge. In the result the Appeal is partly allowed The decree passed by the learned Single Judge is only modified to the extent that the appellants shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum from the dates mentioned in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal.