RSA No.1916 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1916 of 2005 Date of Decision: August 28, 2009 Harbans Lal ...........Appellant Versus M.C.Bhiwani etc. ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate for the respondents. None for the legal representative of respondent No.2 Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG Haryana for respondents No.5&6. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 Municipal Committee, Bhiwani from recovering any amount from him by adopting coercive means. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff-Harbans Lal. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. The genesis of the claim of the plaintiff is that the municipal committee, Bhiwani auctioned the land, in question, for five years w.e.f.14.6.1988 to 15.6.1993 and the plaintiff Harbans Lal emerged as a highest bidder for a sum of Rs.48,50,000/- and lease money was to be deposited in installments of Rs. 19,2500/- RSA No.1916 of 2005 2 each. However, the plaintiff deposited the first instalment on 14.6.1988. Accordingly, the plaintiff took the possession of the land . The area experienced heavy rain and the municipal committee diverted rainy water towards the land, in question. When the plaintiff tried to further divert this water to avoid damage to his crops, the municipal committee served a notice upon the plaintiff to use the water for the said land. But ultimately, his entire crop was damaged. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff applied for compensation for damages of his crops and a committee comprising of five Municipal Commissioners was constituted, who after inspecting the spot submitted its report, which was accepted by the municipal committee and recommended the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani for sanction. Vide notice dated 22.12.1988, the plaintiff was required to make the payment of the amount of Rs.3,85,000/-. 3. It is next averred that rainy water was stagnant in the land, in question, with the result, the plaintiff could not take the benefit of the land. Representations made by the plaintiff remained unfructified. Thereafter, on 11.9.1989, the plaintiff executed a registered lease deed and furnished security. The municipal committee took fifty acres of land from the land, in question, from the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff again made representation, but he was asked to vacate the land. Thus, the plaintiff did not flout the terms and conditions of the lease deed, but he suffered huge loss due to the conduct of the municipal committee, Bhiwani. All these facts and circumstances RSA No.1916 of 2005 3 culminated in the institution of the suit. 4. On notice, the defendant-municipal committee, Bhiwani appeared through counsel and resisted the suit having filed a written statement and vehemently pleaded that in view of clause 21 of the terms and conditions of the auction, the plaintiff was to receive the entire water including rainy water and water from ponds etc. The Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani dismissed the resolution vide dated 1.5.1990 and directed the defendant- municipal committee to recover the balance lease money with interest. The plaintiff was to deposit Rs.15,40,000/- by 31.5.1990, whereas he deposited only Rs.12,77,500/- violating the terms and conditions of the auction and lease agreement. Therefore, the municipal committee is entitled to compound interest at the rate of 18% per annum. A sum of Rs.14,17,500/- was due as to Rs.17,62,707-50 ps, which he has failed to deposit despite repeated requests. A notice was also served upon the plaintiff requiring him to deposit the amount in question, which went unheeded. Lastly, the suit deserves to be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff had to suffer loss due to disposal of the rainy water and sewerage water by the employees of the Municipal Committee towards the land, in question, owned by the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether the defendant has no right to effect recovery, in question, amounting to Rs.38,50,000/-, as damages?OPP RSA No.1916 of 2005 4 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, plaintiffs had taken the land on lease/auction from the Municipal Committee Bhiwani for five years i.e. with effect from 14.6.1988 to 15.6.1993. Plaintiffs were the highest bidder and the lease money of Rs.48,50,000/- was to be deposited in instalments of Rs.1,92,500/- each. On deposit of the first installment on 14.6.1988, plaintiffs took the possession of the land leased out/auctioned to them. Some installments of the lease money were deposited by the plaintiffs. But,thereafter, plaintiffs defaulted in payment of the lease money. Admittedly, clause 16 of the lease deed reflects that the plaintiff-Harbans Lal shall take entire sullage water for five years despite rainy water. Further, he shall not refused to take such water and shall not close the channel of sullage water. The case of the plaintiff was that due to heavy rain fall, the entire rainy water and sewerage water had been diverted to his land and as a result of this, his standing crops were damaged. It was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner that compensation amounting RSA No.1916 of 2005 5 to one installment be paid to the plaintiff and no interest be recovered from him, as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. On the other hand, the case of the Municipal Committee, is that the lease deed had been cancelled due to violation of terms and conditions of auction and lease agreement and the Municipal Committee was entitled to recover the balance lease money along with compound interest. At the time of execution of the lease deed, the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the lease deed/auction were accepted by the plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiffs were well aware of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Since the plaintiffs had failed to pay the installments, the Municipal Committee could cancel the lease deed in terms of its terms and conditions and could also charge compound interest in terms of clause 21 of the lease deed/auction. Plaintiff could not claim damages of his crops due to excessive release of water in terms of clause 7 of the lease deed/auction. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge August 28, 2009 arya