PALTHADI VENKAPPA RAI Vs. DEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal raises an interesting question as to the liability in tort of a village patel, who seems to have seized certain paddy of the plaintiff under orders of the Tahsildar purporting to act under the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act XXIV of 1946). The and defendant is the village patel and the 1st defendant is the Tahsildar. Both of them were sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000, being the damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by reason of the paddy belonging to her being seized and later sold to the South Kanara Central Co -operative Wholesale Stores, Bellary. The facts of the case are that in March, 1948, P.W. 4 bought a cart -load of paddy for the plaintiff, who is his sister, and asked the cart -man, P.W. 5, to carry it to her. On the 6th March, 1948 while the paddy was being loaded into the cart on the public road, the 1st defendant' who was then the Tahsildar of Puttur, appeared on the scene accompanied by the 2nd defendant, the present appellant, the patel of the village: and then the Tahsildar questioned the cart -man, the 2nd defendant and one or two others and proceeded to seize the paddy. After seizing the paddy an yadhast was prepared by the? Tahsildar, which is Exhibit B -2 The appellant, the 2nd defendant, removed the paddy on the instructions of the Tahsildar, and subsequently sold it to the South Kanara Central Co -operative Wholesale Stores, Bellary, and deposited the sale proceeds into the treasury. The plaintiff approached the Tahsildar for return of the paddy; but she could not get a return of the paddy. Therefore she sued both the Tahsildar and the appellant, the 2nd defendant, claiming Rs. 1,000, as damages for the pecuniary loss and mental distress suffered by her by reason of her being wrongfully deprived of the paddy, and her humiliation on account of her property being seized. The Tahsildar who is the 1st defendant died after the filing of the suit.

(2.) THE defence of the appellant, the 2nd defendant, is that the seizure by the Tahsildar, the 1st defendant, was lawful and that under orders of superior officers he delivered the stock of paddy to the Co -operative Stores and deposited the sale proceeds in the treasury and that he only carried out the orders issued by the superior officers in the matter, as he was bound to obey as a village headman and that all the acts were official and done in the course of his legal discharge of his duty as a subordinate of the Government. The Courts below found that the appellant was not protected under any orders of the superior officers and granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 800.

(3.) THAT the mere order of a superior officer, which is not in accordance with law or supported by a lawful order, would not afford justification is also the view taken by the American Courts as could be seen from the view taken by Mclean, J. in Tracy v. Swartwout, 10 Pat. 80; Introduction to Administrative Law, 2nd edition, p. 280, where the learned Judge in posing the question whether the instructions given by the Secretary of the Treasury, when not given in accordance with the law, afford a justification to the collector of the customs, or exonerate him from the payment of adequate damages for an injury resulting from his illegal acts took the view that these instructions were no justification to the defendant and that the illegal acts, though they be done in good faith would not exempt him from giving compensatory damages. The legal position both under the English law, which is also the! view of the American Laws is that a mere reliance on an order of a superior officer cannot exempt an officer like the 2nd defendant from liability in respect of a tort committed as in the present case, so long as the commission of the act is not supported by any lawful order, on which, he could rely.