Parshotam Dass Vs State of Punjab

T h e present regular second appe a l has been filed by the appellant3 plaintiff assaili n g the judgment and decree dat e d 04.02.2000 passed by the lea r ned 1^st Appellate C ourt, whereby the appeal prefe r red by the respondents3defen d ants was allowed a n d the judgment and decree dat e d 30.07.1997 passed by the lea r ned trial Court was set aside. The learned trial Cou r t had decreed the suit of the plai n tiff for permanent injunction restraining the defe n dants from recovering Rs.36, 0 00/through coerci v e means such as arrest or atta c hment of property. The learne d 1^st Appellate Cou r t, however, reversed those findi n gs and dismissed the suit.

¶13

F o r the sake of convenience, the p a rties shall hereinafter be referr e d to as per their res p ective status before the learned Trial court. 3. In brief, the plaintiff i.e. Parshot a m Dass filed a suit for perma n ent injunction rest r aining the defendants includin g the Assistant Collector II G r ade, Nabha from recovering ¹36,000/3 as arrears o f land revenue by coercive m e ans

¶14

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶15

RSA No.2876-2000 (O&M) -2-

¶16

such as arrest, d etention, or attachment of pro p erty. The plaintiff had taken <S u llar Gharat= on le a se from the Government for the year 1988-89 under a wr i tten agreement and h is accounts for the said year w e re duly settled. Further the plai n tiff stated that he h anded over possession of the G h arat on 31.03.1989, as nothing was outstanding ag a inst him. Being not a defaulter, he was allowed to participate i n the auction for th e year 1989-90 held on 22.02.1989, where he was declared the highest bidder and deposited ¹36,000/3 as se c urity vide receipt No.86. How e ver, due to the dila p idated condition of the Gharat a n d failure of the authorities to r e pair it despite rep e ated requests, he could not operate it after 01.04.1989. The defendants, ho w ever, falsely recorded it as r u nning in his name and refused to refund his se c urity amount. Instead, defen d ant No.2 issued a notice d ated 10.03.1992 thr o ugh the Assistant Collector II Grade for recovery of ¹36,000 / 3 as arrears of land revenue. The plaintiff alleged that the said action was base d on incorrect facts mentioned in letter dated 06.1 2 .1991 issued by defendant no. 2 . It was also plead e d that the agreement contained an arbitration clause providing that any such disp u te could only be decided thr o ugh arbitration. The plaintiff had earlier filed a writ petition before this High Court, which was dismissed w ith liberty to file a civil suit before the competent c ourt and plaintiff had also sent l egal notice on 08.0 6 .1992 u/s 80 CPC but defenda n ts did not file any reply to the same and accordingl y , the present suit came to be instituted. 4. U p on notice, defendant contested the suit by filing written state m ent taking some pr e liminary objections. On merit, it was admitted that the water f lour mill (<Sullar G harat=) was leased to the plain t iff for the year 1988-89, as he was the highest bid d er. It was denied that the plai n tiff had handed over possession of the mill on 31.03.1989 and it was conten d ed that the mill remained in his

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶18

RSA No.2876-2000 (O&M) -3-

¶19

possession up t o 16.08.1989. Accordingly, he was liable to pay lease rent for that period, after d educting the security amount. It was further admitted that the plaintiff partici p ated in the auction for the yea r 1989-90 on 22.02.1989, depo s ited ¹36,000/- as s ecurity, and was declared t h e highest bidder. The defen d ants contended that rent of ¹58,200/- was due f o r the year 1989-90, out of w h ich ¹36,000/- had b een deposited as security, lea v ing a balance of ¹22,200/- pa y able by the plaintiff . It was denied that the plaintiff ever requested for repair of the mill or raised any c o mplaint regarding the alleged u nfit condition of the Sullar Gah r atas alleged in the p laint. The defendants also relie d on documentary corresponden c e to show that the p laintiff9s claim regarding possession, repair, and refund of sec u rity were incorrect.

¶20

T h e learned trial Court after perusal of the pleadings and docu m ents on record had framed six issues including rel i ef. To prove his case, the plai n tiff examined him s elf along with his attorney, B h agwan Dass as PW1, and tendered documents as E x.P1 to P25. The defendants pr o duced documents marked Ex. D 1 to Ex.D14 in sup p ort of their contentions. Upo n consideration of the evidence and submissions of learned counsel, the learned tri a l Court decreed the suit with c osts and granted a permanent injunction restrain i ng the defendants including t heir officers, from r ecovering ¹36,000/- as arrears of land revenue by coercive m e ans such as arrest, d etention, or attachment of prop e rty, 6. A g grieved thereby, the defendant s filed the first appeal. The lea r ned 1st Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence held that the respondent3pla i ntiff, Parshotam Dass, had fail e d to prove that he had handed o ver possession of t h e mill on 31.03.1989 or that t h e alleged requests for repairs w ere made and rec e ived by the department. The l earned 1^st Appellate Court fu r ther

¶21

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶22

RSA No.2876-2000 (O&M) -4-

¶23

noted that the defendants had produced su f ficient evidence to show that the possession w a s taken through the Tehsil d ar, lease charges were corr e ctly calculated, an d the plaintiff could not rely o n the arbitration clause for the y ear 1989-90, as he had not entered into the agree m ent with the defendants. In vie w of this, the learne d 1st Appellate Court had set a s ide the judgment and decree o f the learned trial C ourt and dismissed the suit. H ence, the present regular se c ond appeal.

¶24

L e arned counsel for the appella n t, contends that the appellant was highest bidder o f the Water Flour Mills at San g rur for the year 1989-1990 and also deposited the r e quisite security but he was nev e r handed over possession in pr o per condition, nor was any formal agreement executed despite confirmation o f the auction. Conse q uently, the appellant could n o t operate the gharat, which w a s in deteriorating c ondition, and handed over t he possession to defendants on 31.03.1989. T h e learned trial Court, after e x amining the relevant records, had rightly concluded that the appellant-plaintiff w a s entitled to the relief of mand a tory injunction rest r aining the respondents-defen d ants from recovering any am o unt without proper determination. The learned 1^st Appellate Court, however, ille g ally and arbitrarily d ismissed the suit and passed a d ecree of Rs. 22,000/- in favor o f the respondents on baseless grounds, ignoring the o ral and documentary evidence, and awarding relie f that was never pleaded nor su b stantiated. The appellant, there f ore, submits that t h e impugned judgment and d ecree dated 04.02.2000 is w h olly unsustainable i n law and prays that the same be set aside and the judgment and decree of the l e arned trial Court be restored, w h ich is based on correct appreci a tion of facts and la w .

¶25

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶26

RSA No.2876-2000 (O&M) -5-

¶27

L e arned counsel for the responde n ts, on the other hand, contends that the learned 1^st Appellate Court has rightly c onsidered the evidence on re c ord, correctly appre c iated the facts, and passed the j udgment in accordance with la w . It is submitted that there is no infirmity or lega l ground warranting interferenc e by this Court.

¶28

I h ave heard the learned counsel for the parties and have care f ully gone through t h e record of the learned Courts below. On a careful perusal o f the record and sub m issions, it is evident that the le a rned 1^st Appellate Court has ri g htly appreciated th e facts and law. The appella n t, Parshotam Dass, lawfully h eld possession of t h e water flour mills for the year 1988-89 and was the highest bi d der in the auction held for the year 1989-90 and deposited the requisite securit y of Rs.36,000/-. T h e dispute relates to the lease m o ney for the period from 01.04. 1 989 to 16.08.1989. The appellant has failed to pr o ve that the possession was ha n ded over to the res p ondent-department on 01.04.1 9 89, rather the possession was t a ken over from the p laintiff through the Tehsildar, S unam, on 16.12.1989, whereas rent was charged fo r the period from 01.04.1989 to 16.08.1989 i.e., the period for w h ich the mill remai n ed operational and the balance amount of ¹22,200/- was ri g htly recoverable as arrears. Moreover, in his let t er dated 19.08.1989, the plai n tiff himself admit t ed that since the SDO, Bal a d, had taken over possessio n on 16.08.1989, he was not liable to pay lease mo n ey beyond that date, thus, the s t and of the plaintif f that he was not in possessi o n of the water flour mills w .e.f. 01.04.1989 wa s unsubstantiated. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts an d circumstances, this Court finds no ground to int e rfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learne d 1^st

¶29

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶30

RSA No.2876-2000 (O&M) -6-

¶31

Appellate Cou r t and the same is upheld. Con s equently, the regular second appeal stands dismiss e d.

¶32

M i sc. application(s) pending, if an y , also stands disposed of.

¶33

	(AM	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
October 14, 20 25
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶34

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.10.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Parshotam Dass v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshotam Dass v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)v.K.Sharma Vs Poonam Sardana.

Kk Batra Vs Bl Dua

Harmesh Kaur and Aors Vs Bhagwan Singh and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rattno Devi

N.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Bimla Devi

Mohan Lal Vs Punjab Wakf Board