LILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a second appeal by legal representatives of plaintiff (since deceased) under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) LATE Premlal Sao (since deceased, his legal representatives are appellants in this case) was a liquor contractor at Khairlanji, Tahsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat for the years 1967-68,1968-69 and 1969-70. Contract was for Rs. 65,100/-, Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- for these years respectively. On 29.9.1969 the liquor shop was reauctioned for the period between 1.10.1969 to 31.3.1970. Excise Officer, Balaghat, acting as Additional Tahsildar, commenced proceedings for recovery of Rs. 75,484.72 the balance amount of licence fee for the said period and after service of demand notice dated 23.10.1972 on 13.11.1972 in Case No. 15-B/96/69 under section 146 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (to be called as 'Code' only) attached agricultural lands contained in 10 Khasra numbers area being 17-79 acres situate in village Kinhi in Tahsil Waraseoni (to be called as 'suit land') and issued a sale proclamation for sale of these lands. This civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from selling the lands was filed.

(3.) THE respondent contested that there was no such undertaking for compensating in case of short supply or non-supply of liquor. However, whenever contractor had approached or demanded the liquor it was supplied to him. The contractor himself could not run the shop for no fault of the respondent. District Excise Officer, Balaghat (to be called as 'DEO') was Additional Tahsildar for Waraseoni also vide notification No. 2589/884. VII-N dated 4th July, 1968 and thus could have attached and sell the land situate in Waraseoni also. Lands held by contractor consist of a single holding and thus could be attached and sold being more than 10.00 acres in area. The civil suit was barred by limitation being filed after 3 years of accruing of cause of action. Valuation of the suit, Court-fee paid and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court were also challenged.