Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

N.K. Agrawal, J.—This is a petition filed by fourteen petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the State of Punjab and its Officers of the Soil Conservation Department and also to the respondentBanks not to recover the cost of lining of the watercourse of outlet No. RD12215L.

The lands of the petitioners are situated in villages Maluka and Kotha Guru, Tehsil Phul, District Bhatinda. These lands were being irrigated by the aforesaid outlet of Maluka Minor. Since it was a kacha water course, a Scheme for the bricklining of the watercourse was approved by the District Land Development Committee, Bhatinda. The Scheme was notified on 3.2.1978 under Section 11 of the Punjab Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1963. The watercourse, in question, serving the lands of the petitioners, was included in the Scheme. The said Scheme was financed by the Punjb State Co operative Land Mortgage Bank (respondent No. 4) through the Primary Co operative Land Mortgage Bank, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda. The petitioners have alleged that the watercourse, marked ``A to B'''' in Annexure P2 was not bricklined and, therefore, the respondentBank was not entitled to make recovery of the loan advanced for the purposes of the Scheme. The lands of the petitioners are situated on the watercourse marked ``AB'''' in Annexure P2 and, since the bricklining of that watercourse was not done, the petitioners were not liable to pay any share of the expenditure of the brick lining of other watercourses which did not serve the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners'' case, in a nutshell, is that, since they did not derive any benefit from the Scheme, the respondentBank should be restrained from making recovery of the loan by sale of land. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (State of Punjab and Chief Soil Conservator, Punjab) have, in their joint reply, stated that the loans of the petitioners were included in the Scheme and the petitioner had agreed to raise loans from the Banks by mortgaging their lands. Since the petitioners'' land are included in the command area of the outlet, recovery of loan is justified because the Scheme was implemented on commandarea basis. The petitioners are, therefore, said to be liable to bear the proportionate cost of the project. In the joint reply, the respondentBank, namely, the Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and the Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank, Rampura Phul, have asserted that loan was to be repaid by some of the petitioners in seven annual instalments with interest at the rate of 10.5 per cent per annum. It has been stated that the Bank was not concerned with the work of brick lining. It is also stated that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 have already prepaid their loans and, therefore, they had no cause of action to file the present writ petition. It is further stated that petitioner No. 7 did not raise any loan but it was his father who had obtained loan from the Bank. Similarly, petitioners No. 8 to 13 are also said to be not debtors of the Bank. It is also pointed out that the petitioners should have resorted to the alternative remedy under the Arbitration Clause of the Loan Agreement and, therefore, they had no authority to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

From the averments of the parties, it is clear that the petitioners did mortgage their lands with the respondentBank for obtaining loan for the purposes of bricklining of the Kacha watercourse. Some specific portion, marked ``A to D'''' in Annexure P2, may not have been bricklined but that alone would not entitle the petitioners from withholding the repayment of the loan. There is no denial to the assertion made by respondents No. 1 and 2 that the petitioners have benefited from the bricklining inasmuch as their lands were situated in the commandarea of the outlet. Since recovery is to be made on the command area basis, the petitioners cannot lawfully refrain from making the payment of loan. There is also no denial to the assertion made by the respondentBank that, under the Arbitration Clause, the petitioners may seek their remedy in regard to the repayment of the loan. If certain portion of the watercourse has not been bricklined, that would be a different cause of action against the authorities who are entrusted with the work of bricklining and that would not entitle the petitioners to withhold the repayment of loan. The receipt of loanmoney has not been denied but it is only the repayment of loan which is under controversy. Since the scheme has been implemented and the lands of the petitioners fall within the command area of the outlet, they are liable to repay the loan. Some of the petitioners, namely, petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 have already repaid the loan. In such a situation, the present petition suffers from a major defect that those persons, who did not have any cause of action, have also been impleaded as petitioners without any justifiable reasons. Similarly, petitioners No. 7 to 13 are also said to be not the loanees of the respondentBank as per the averments made by respondents No. 4 and 5.

In the result, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are liable to repay the loan which was advanced for implementation of the Scheme from which their land was to derive benefits of irrigation. The petition also is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as an alternative remedy, available under the Arbitration Clause of the Loan Agreement, has not been availed of. Since some of the petitioners have no cause of action and they have either repaid the loan or have not raised the loan at all, on that account also the petition fails.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No corder as to costs.