GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SADARAM NOOKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arise under the following circumstances: The right to collect toll from the shopkeepers, who have their stalls in the market place at the weekly shandy was auctioned by the Estate Thasildar of Anakapalli, and the respondent herein happened to be the highest bidder. The auction was confirmed in his name. The sale was subject to the payment of cess to the Government at the rate of Rs. 0-5-0 in the rupee. The case of the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein is that he made representations to the Government that Government should not levy any of the auctions of the right to collect tolls in the years past and in fact the auction for the previous year fasli 1361 was also not subject to the payment of any cess.The plaintiff stated that in spite of protests having been raised by the plaintiff with regard to the collection of the amount of cess, the authorities, compelled him to pay the amount and thereupon he paid the amount of Rs. 970-10-0 on 1-10-1951 to the Estate Tahsildar, Anakapalli under protest at the same time submitting a petition protesting against the levy of cess, that he was not liable to pay, that he was compelled to pay the amount because of the persistent demands of the Government. His main contention was that the auction of the right to collect toll at the Pravada shandy was not subject to the payment of cess, that it was not one of the conditions of the auction, and that the previous auctions held by the Vizianagram Estate were not subject to the condition. He therefore submitted that the levy in question was illegal and as such he was entitled to a refund of the amount, and the present suit was filed claiming a refund of the amount of the cess collected from him on 1-10-1951 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

(2.) The Government of Andhra, the defendant in the case, rested the suit mainly on the ground that it was proper levy and that the plaintiff was not entitled to file the suit for recovery of the amount, that it was a statutory obligation to pay arising on the conclusion of the contract and as such it could not be regarded as any imposition of levy and that the Government was authorised under the statute to collect the cess. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation not having been filed within one year as provided under the Art. 16 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The two questions that arose before the trail Court were as to whether it was an illegal levy and secondly whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was within time.