Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) THE appellant challenges judgment and decree dated 30.07.1988, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, reversing judgment and decree dated 06.02.1988, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Sonepat. Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand by respondent No. 3 -Gram Panchayat, Murthal, to recover arrears of rent, in purported exercise of power under Section 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to a the Act) (as applicable to the State of Haryana), was without jurisdiction as it was not preceded by any determination. The impugned notice served to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue was, therefore, clearly illegal and a permanent injunction was rightly granted by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has erred in holding that the remedy of the appellant is to file a suit after the payment of the amount in terms of Section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "1887 Act"). It is contended that while considering a similar controversy, it has been held in "Punjab State and others V/s Bachan Lal " 1986 PLJ 586, that if a civil Court comes to a prima -facie conclusion that the demand is totally illegal, it may grant an injunction against recovery as arrears of land revenue and would not require the aggrieved party to file a suit under Section 78 of the 1987 Act.
(2.) NO -one is present on behalf of respondent No. -3 Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and decree and find no reason to hold that it is in any manner illegal, void, without jurisdiction or raises any substantial question of law.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the appellant took land on rent from the Gram Panchayat but as he did not pay the lease money, the Gram Panchayat quantified the amount as Rs. 4,378/ -, issued a notice and forwarded a request to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Sonepat to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue. The appellant filed a suit, seeking an injunction against this demand by inter -alia pleading that as possession of the land, in dispute, was not delivered, and no adjudication had preceded raising of the demand, the order passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sonepat, demanding Rs. 4,378/ - as arrears of land revenue, is illegal. The trial court decreed the suit but the first appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court by placing reliance upon revenue entries that record the appellant in possession of the land, in dispute. After considering the aforesaid revenue entries, the first appellate Court proceeded to allow the appeal by holding as follows: - 10. According to the provisions of Section 12 of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, the arrears of rent are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It has transpired from the evidence led by the defendant appellant that a sum of Rs. 4378/ - is due from the plaintiff. For ready reference provisions of Section 12 of the Act are reproduced as under: - Any arrears of rent payable to Panchayat in respect of any land in shamlat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in it under this Act or the shamilat law (or any amount assessed under sub -section (2) of Sec. 7) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent has submitted that the lease money is nothing but a contract money and recovery of this amount cannot be effected as arrears of land revenue and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent has drawn my attention to the authority Phul Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat and others,, 1982 All ILLR, 215. But this authority does not apply to the present case. The lease money in the present appeal is nothing but arrears of rent, and the same can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The present suit of the plaintiff is also not maintainable because the remedy with the plaintiff was to file a suit for recovery of refund of the amount after depositing the arrears as envisaged by section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The present suit in my opinion is barred u/s. 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and findings given by learned Sub -Judge on this issue cannot be sustained.;