RSA No. 926 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 926 of 1986 Date of decision: July 7, 2011 The State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Sham Dass ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab, for the appellant. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) Heard. This is the second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff- State of Punjab against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.1983 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, dismissing its suit for recovery of Rs. 3439.62 paise (Rs. 2300.62 paise as principal and Rs. 1139/- as interest thereon calculated @ 6% per annum from 24.10.1971 to 21.1.1980), as reclamation charges. As per the contentions made in the plaint, land measuring 5922 bighas 11 biswas was owned by shamlat deh hasab hisis under Rehabilitation Department (Custodian) in village Dutal, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. Out of that, land measuring 586 bighas 4 biswas, detailed in the plaint, was allotted to Sham Dass/respondent/defendant. Out of the RSA No. 926 of 1986 2 land so allotted, 401 bighas 15 biswas was reclaimed by the State, after following the procedure laid down in Pepsu Reclamation of Lands Act, 2009, at the cost of Rs. 96,975/- i.e. @ Rs. 75/- per acre. Demand notice was sent to the Collector for effecting reclamation charges. As the defendant was got benefited by the reclamation of the land, so he is liable to pay the amount in dispute under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant, who pleaded in his written statement that the land was allotted to him much after the date of reclamation and, as such, he is not liable to pay any such amount. Several thousands of rupees have already been recovered from him by the plaintiff illegally and that amount is liable to be adjusted towards the amount, if any, due from him. He also took the plea that the suit is barred under Section 11 CPC, in view of the earlier decision in Civil Suit No. 480 of 22.10.1971 decided on 20.10.1972 by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Patiala, which was between the same parties and that decision was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, and a declaration was granted to him that he was not liable to pay any such reclamation charges. On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial court:- “1. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of resjudicata ? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff reclaimed the land as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reclamation charges ? If so, to what amount ? OPP 4. Relief.” RSA No. 926 of 1986 3 After going through the evidence produced by the parties and hearing GP for the plaintiff and counsel for the defendant, all the issues were decided against the plaintiff and resultantly, its suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the State tried to contend that substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, as the finding recorded by the lower court on issue No.1 is perverse. In the previous suit, the question involved was, whether the amount in dispute could have been recovered from the defendant as arrears of land revenue and any finding recorded in that suit will not operate as res-judicata as the same was based upon different cause of action. This contention of the learned counsel for the State is mis- conceived and is against the facts of the case. The certified copy of judgment rendered by the trial court in the previous suit between the parties was proved on record as Ex. D.1, whereas the certified copies of the judgment and decree sheet of the appellate court were proved as Ex. D.2 and D.3 respectively. A perusal thereof shows that the defendant filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is not liable to pay any reclamation charges, as assessed by the Government for the alleged reclamation made on the present land in dispute itself. The suit was contested by the plaintiff and was decreed in favour of the defendant on merits. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any further appeal was filed. Therefore, the finding recorded by that appellate court has attained finality. It was held in that suit that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any such reclamation charges in respect of the reclamation of the land in dispute. The matter in dispute in the present suit was directly and substantially in issue in RSA No. 926 of 1986 4 the previous suit between the same parties, litigating under the same title, which was heard and finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Correct findings were recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court that the suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata under Section 11 of the C.P.C.. Therefore, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. There is no merit in the present and the same is dismissed accordingly. Records of the lower court be returned forthwith. July 7, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE