BRAHMDEO NARAIN SINGH Vs. MEMBERS OF THE NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as damages for breach of contract and for a declaration that the Certificate Proceedings in case No. 138 MC of 1952-53 were illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Me also asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the certificate case. The defendants were the members of the Notified Area Committee. Mokamah, through the Chairman.

(2.) The plaintiff had taken the settlement of the Mokamah Ferry from the defendants in the name of Sarjug Singh for the year 1951-52 on an annual rental of Rs. 13,000/-. Daryapur Ferry is a neighbouring ferry under the control of the Patna District Board and it had been settled with another person for that year. On account of some troubles caused by the settlee of the Daryapur Ferry in regard to a part of the area covered by the settlement of the Mokamah Ferry, proceedings under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, were started on the 11th of October, 1951. Mr. B. Narayan (P. W. 5) who was then the Subdivisional Officer, Barh, dropped those proceedings on the 11th of October, 1951 but passed orders directing the plaintiff to relinquish a portion of his ferry area from the eastern side of the Mokamanh Ghat Railway Booking Office. The plaintiff accordingly gave up that area and alleged in the suit that this portion was very lucrative and as he was dispossessed from that portion, he suffered great loss in his income from the ferry. He assessed that loss at Rupees 20,000/-. For the year 1952-53 the area of that ferry included the previously relinquished portion and was again settled with the plaintiff for Rs. 21,000/-. But subsequently, under the orders of the Commissioner that settlement was cancelled though the plaintiff continued in possession of that ferry till December 1952. He paid Rs. 10,000/- at the time of settlement for 1952-53 out of which Rs. 3,500/-was credited towards the rental of that year and Rs. 6,500/- was taken in satisfaction of the area rental due for 1951-52. The plaintiff alleged that he was assured by the Sub-divisional Officer who was the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, at the time of settlement of the ferry for 1952-58 that he would be given a remission in the rental for 1951-52 and also compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of dispossession from a portion of the ferry area during 1951-52. He served a notice on the defendants without any effect. For the dues for the year 1952-53 from the plaintiff, a certificate under, the Public Demands Recovery Act was filed against the plaintiff. To avoid that and to secure compensation the present suit was ultimately filed.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiff was dispossessed from any lucrative or substantial portion of the ferry on the 11th October, 1951 and bad suffered any loss on that account. The Sub-divisional Officer who was the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee had no authority to give any assurance to the plaintiff either for remission of rent or for payment of compensation in connection with the settlement in 1951-52. The certificate proceedings were claimed to be legal. On these pleadings, sis issues were cast and parties went to trial.