MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.- The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 26.6.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sheikhupura dismissing his suit for permanent injunction and also the judgment and decree dated 23 4.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura whereby his appeal against the said dismissal of suit, was also dismissed.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a suit before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration that he was neither defaulter of any Government dues nor was liable to deposit the said dues and that the respondents/defendants be restrained from recovering that amount as arrears of land revenue from him through coercive measures, it was asserted in the plaint that during the life the of his father Abdul Hamid who was Lamberdar of Chak No. 15/R.B., Sheikhupura the Petitioner/plaintiff under the authority of the Revenue Field Staff had been collecting the land revenue from land-owners of the said Chak and kept on depositing the same in Government Treasury till 1986. As some of the land-owners being politically influential persons refused to pay the land revenue to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner informed the concerned Revenue Officer by disclosing their names but no action was taken against them by the said Officer. Further it was averred that for the default of those persons the petitioner was being proceeded against by the Collector knowingly that neither he was ever appointed Lumberdar nor he ever committed default in the deposit of collected land revenue, hence, the Collector had got no jurisdiction to declare the petitioner as defaulter and start proceedings against him for the recovery of the same amount as arrears of land revenue, without proper determination of said amount after giving notice to him as well as joining him with the proceedings. This suit was contested by the respondent/defendant No. 1 only, by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability of suit and want of jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the said suit, were raised besides denying the contents of the plaint on facts. The learned Trial Court in the light of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?
(2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is not defaulter and is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(4) Relief.
3. The petitioner in support of his claim produced Abdul Razzaq PW-1 and he himself appeared as PW-2, whereas no evidence was led by the respondents. However, the learned Trial Court on the basis of its findings on Issue No. 1 dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.6.1995 holding the same as not maintainable without deposit of disputed amount in the Court in terms of Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. Against the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23.4.1996, hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner namely Ch. Akbar Ali Shad, Advocate in support of this Civil Revision has solely argued that without admitting the authority of the petitioner to collect the disputed amount, petitioner's contention is that before demanding the said amount from him neither any due amount was determined by issuing any notice to him or affording him opportunity of hearing nor proper proceedings for determining the disputed amount of arrears of land revenue, were initiated, hence the entire exercise before respondent/Collector was without jurisdiction and lawful authority. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the case reported in PLD 1978 Lah. 859.
5. From the perusal of record and evidence produced by the Petitioner/plaintiff, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be well-founded. No evidence has been led by the respondents to establish that before raising such a demand against the petitioner either any notice was given to him or he was ever afforded opportunity of hearing and that the amount in dispute was determined after adopting the procedural requirements of Land Revenue Act. in the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held that any legal amount was due and recoverable from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Hence, no question of deposit of said amount before the filing of the suit in terms of Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act arises. Therefore, the findings of both the two Courts below under Issue No. 1 are not sustainable in law.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that this Civil Revision is allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside and the suit of the Petitioner/plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. However, it would be open for the concerned Collector to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner by determining the due amount after issuing notice to him, affording opportunity of hearing to him and also adopting procedural requirements of Land Revenue Act.
The parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this judgment be immediately sent to the Collector/District Officer Revenue, Sheikhupura.