IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3387 of 2006 Date of decision: 1.4.2009 State of Punjab through Collector, Patiala and others … Appellants. Versus Sarbjit Singh … Respondent CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab for the appellant-State Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the respondent … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is defendants’ second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. Plaintiff, Sarabjit Singh, in his plaint pleaded that he took quarry on lease at village Shekhupura, for excavating the minor minerals, i.e. sand for a period of three years from 2002 to 31.3.2005 at the rate of Rs.3,30,000/- per year. According to the plaintiff, in the open auction so held, he gave the highest bid and accordingly, deposited a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, out of which half amount was towards security while the remaining half was towards instalment of the first quarter of the contract. Thereafter, an agreement in Form-L was executed by the State Government in his favour. However, the plaintiff could not operate the said quarry since the residents of village Shekhupura did not permit the plaintiff to pass his vehicles through the passage which was blocked by them. Another passage which the plaintiff could use to reach the quarry was through village RSA No. 3387 of 2006 -2- Hashampur Mangtan but since the residents of village Hashampur Mangtan were also operating the quarry illegally, they too did not allow the plaintiff to pass his vehicles through that passage. Due to this, the plaintiff was unable to excavate the sand from the quarry of village Shekhupura. Plaintiff, therefore, vide his letter dated 2.7.2002 informed the defendants about the illegal operation of quarry in village Hashampur Mangtan thereby asking them to stop the same. It may be apt to mention at this stage that before the afore-stated quarry was leased out to the plaintiff, one Dharampal Singh was in its possession as a lessee. He also was not permitted by the residents of village Shekhupura to excavate the quarry and thus, there was a litigation between said Dharampal Singh and the Gram Panchayat of village Shekhupura. As per case of the plaintiff, he came to know about the said litigation only after he reached the quarry for excavation. Accordingly, the plaintiff asked the defendants to cancel his lease whereafter defendant No.2 recommended the cancellation of the quarry and accordingly, informed the plaintiff vide his letters dated 19.11.2002 and 28.10.2002. According to the plaintiff, since he did not operate the quarry even for a single day, he was entitled to recover Rs.1,65,000/- so deposited by him with the defendants. But, on the other hand, the defendants issued a letter dated 12.9.2003 to the plaintiff thereby seeking to recover a sum of Rs.63010/- from him, which according to the plaintiff was illegal and void. He therefore requested the defendants not to insist upon the said recovery and to rather refund him Rs.1,65,000/- afore- stated but all in vain. Hence, the suit. Upon notice of the suit, the defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and defended their action in seeking the afore-stated recovery. It was alleged that since the plaintiff did not deposit the next instalment, the contract was cancelled and the security deposited by him was forfeited. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had got weighment slips issued from defendant No.2 for operating the quarry which shows that he had been excavating the sand from the quarry. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2005, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the defendants were not entitled to recovery a sum of Rs.63515/- i.e. principal amount of Rs.61053/- and interest Rs.2457/- from the plaintiff after setting aside order dated 4.9.2003 passed by defendant RSA No. 3387 of 2006 -3- No.4. The defendants were restrained from recovering any amount from the plaintiff in any manner and were further directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- deposited by the plaintiff towards amount of security and instalment of first quarter of the contract, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of contract till final realization. Aggrieved therefrom, the defendants preferred an appeal which however was partly allowed by the first appellate Court which, after modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff thereby holding him entitled to recover Rs.1,47,000/- from the defendants subject to his depositing Rs.4004/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum upon Rs.1,65,000/- from the date of institution of the suit till the date of deposit of the said amount with the trial Court within one month. It was also ordered that the defendants would not be entitled to recover Rs.63505/- as demanded by them from the plaintiff. It also declared order dated 4.9.2003 passed by defendant No. 4 as illegal and void. It was also held that upon fulfillment of the above-stated condition by the plaintiff, he would also be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum upon Rs.1,47,000/- from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the full decretal amount. Still feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present second appeal before this Court. The first appellate Court after analyzing the evidence had also concluded that it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to provide a free and unobstructed passage/access to the quarry but they failed to do so and resultantly, the plaintiff-respondent could not reach the quarry and excavate the sand and as such, the appellants are not within their rights to withhold his security and the instalment so deposited by the plaintiff at the time of the auction. First appellate Court at the same time also observed that the respondent-plaintiff was also duty bound to affix the necessary court-fee and while modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court, held that the plaintiff was required to deposit Rs.4004/-(court- fee) along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum on the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- sought to be recovered by him from the defendants and therefore, it ordered that the consequential decree would be subject to plaintiff’s depositing the aforesaid amount within one month and his depositing with the Court interest upon the above-stated Rs.1,65,000/- at RSA No. 3387 of 2006 -4- the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of deposit of the above-said amount with the trial Court. It was further ordered that appellants-defendants are not entitled to recover Rs.63505/- as demanded by them from the respondent-plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs.1,47,000/- in the manner indicated above. In this second appeal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has not been able to point out anything so as to persuade this Court to take a contrary to the one taken by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. April 1, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE