Chuttu Lal vs Bhugwati Prosad and others

In this case the learned Judges in both the lower Courts have determined that the suit is not maintainable. It is, however, quite clear to us that it is maintainable. The Defendant''s property had been sold for arrears of revenue. He applied to the Collector to set that sale aside. The Collector refused to do so, and the Defendant accordingly applied to the Commissioner of Patna. The Commissioner of Patna set aside the sale, and, furthermore, in pursuance of the powers given to him by sec. 2 of Act VII (Bengal Council) of 1868, he awarded to the purchaser, that is, the present Plaintiff, a payment from the proprietor, that is, the present Defendant, of compensation for his loss. Such compensation he fixed at 41/2 per cent. interest, that is, interest not exceeding interest at the highest rate current on Government Securities which existed at the time. The interest ran on the amount of the deposit, which was the purchase-money. The learned Judges of the Court below considered that this suit will not lie, because it seeks to enforce an order made by the Revenue authorities. The mistake made by the lower Courts is that they treated this suit as seeking to interfere in some way or other with the jurisdiction which the law gives to the Revenue Courts. It is a suit not brought for any purpose of that kind, and if anything, the object of it is to further and act in aid of the powers possessed by the Revenue Courts. There is no doubt that if there were a procedure under the Revenue Law, by which the Plaintiff could obtain execution of this order of the Commissioner and recover the money otherwise than by way of a suit in a Civil Court, he ought to adopt that procedure, and, having regard to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in 7 Weekly Reporter, Civil Rulings, 216, he would then have no right of action. But it is admitted in this case that there is no procedure available to him otherwise than by way of suit. There is nothing in any Act connected with the collection of revenue, which gives the Commissioner or any other Revenue Officer power to enforce this order in any way. That being so, it must follow that there is a remedy by way of suit. There has been, by virtue of the order of the Commissioner made in accordance with aw, a debt created, payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. There being that debt, it followed, unless there is some statutory enactment excluding a right of suit either expressly or by implication, that Civil Courts have power to compel the Defendant to pay that debt, and the only way by which those Courts can compel such payment is by suit. This suit therefore lies.

We set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and send the case back with the finding that this suit is maintainable, and that the order of the Commissioner made in accordance with law must be treated as binding the parties, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover on the basis of that order. The Plaintiff will not be entitled to any interest after the date on which it was possible for him to draw out this money from the Collectorate. We have no information before us, upon which we could say whether he was in any way prevented from drawing out this money after the date of the Commissioner''s order. He sues for interest up to the date of the actual withdrawal of the purchase-money, and if he could in any way withdraw it earlier, he would not be entitled to any interest or compensation in respect of it. The Plaintiff is entitled to his costs in this and the lower Appellate Court. The costs of the first Court will abide the result.