Des Raj Ex Municipal Commissioner, Bhargo Camp, Jullundur City vs Punjab Government Though The Secretary To Government, Punjab Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-4-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar, whereby the plaint filed by the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been rejected.

A suit was brought by them against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 u/s 91 of the CPC (for short the Code) for declaration to the effect that mutation No. 14250 entered on 9-6-1973 and sanctioned on 14-7-1973 of 1536 Kanals 4 marlas of land situated in village Saipur is wrong and bad in law seeking a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the aforesaid Respondents from interfering in any manner with the land so mutated. The plaint was accompanied by an application u/s 91 read with Section 151 of the Code for grant of permission to sue on the allegations that the Plaintiffs are social workers of Jalandhar City and were interested in the cause of action of those who raised construction on the land in dispute demolition of which is threatened by the Defendant-Respondents. Another application u/s 80(2) of the Code was also filed for permission to file the suit without prior service of notice u/s 80(1) of the Code on them. Through the order under revision the learned trial Court disallowed both the aforesaid applications and as a result rejected the plaint.

1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I find that there is no error of jurisdiction involved in the impugned order. Section 91 of the Code provides that in the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted by the Advocate General, or with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the facts set out in the plaint do not make out a case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. In fact the land in question has been brought by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust Respondent No. 3 under a development scheme in pursuance of the provisions of the Punjab 1 own Improvement Act and it is this action which is sought to be challenged in the suit. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the subject matter of the suit could be brought within the ambit of Section 91 of the Code. The learned trial Court was, therefore, right in declining leave to the Plaintiffs to file the suit in the representative capacity under the aforesaid provisions.

Section 80 (2) of the Code provides that a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity may be instituted with the leave of the Court without serving a notice as required by Sub-section (1) thereof. It is further provided, inter alia, that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirement of Sub-section (1). The suit which was filed before the learned trial Court was, inter alia for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the land in dispute. The mutation sanctioned in favour of Respondent No. 2 was also challenged and a declaration was sought that the said mutation is invalid. Obviously before the Plaintiffs could succeed in obtaining injunction they were required to show that the mutation in question had been sanctioned illegally. The mutation was entered in the revenue record as far back as on 9-6-1973 and was sanctioned on 14-7-1973. The suit was filed without issuing prior notice u/s 80(1) of the Code to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 5-4-1983 i.e. after nearly ten years I am, therefore, satisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court that the matter was obviously not of an urgent nature within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Code. The application was, therefore, rightly dismissed.

Consequently, I find no force in this revision petition which is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.