COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY ANAKAPALLI Vs. DIRECTOR OF A P AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the -appellant. It laid the suit to recover a Sum of Rs. 5,63,364-83 Ps. being the compensation due and payable by the Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Anakapalle, the second defendant, from 1971--72 to 1977-78 at the rate of Rs. 80,480-69p. per annum estimated as taking over the market by the second defendant with effect from April 1,1971. The suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that on and from the date of taking over, the appellant is entitled to lay the suit within three years from the date of the claim and as the suit claim is barred by limitation, the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation for the market fee collected but only entitled to licence fee under S.29 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act (Act XVI) of 1966,) (for short 'the Act'). Accordingly, on both the grounds it dismissed the suit.

(2.) Shri Venkat Reddy, the learned counsel for the Municipality has contended that preceding April 1, 1971, the municipality has been collecting the fee for sale of the commodities brought to the markets established under S. 277 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act No. VI of 1965) (for. short 'the Municipalities Act'). The appellant was deprived of that right to collection oil and with effect from April 1, 1971 on handing over the same to the second defendant, the market committee. It is entitled to recover under Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 29 of the Act and the liability was fastened by the Legislature under Sub. S. (2) of S. 29 of the Act. Any claim arising or the contribution to be made under any other law is within the power under S.364 of the Municipalities Act. The extended period of limitation has been provided under S.365 of the Municipalities Act of a period of six years. Therefore, the suit is within limitation.

(3.) The first question, therefore, is whether the suit is within limitation ? Section 365 of the Municipalities Act provides the right to the Municipality thus : "Limitation for recovery of dues : - (1) No distraint shall be mads, no suit shall be instituted in respect of any sum due to the council under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which distraint might first have been made or after the expiration of a period of six years from the date on which a suit might first have been instituted as the case may be, in respect of such sum." The right to recover has been provided under S. 364 which reads thus:-- '.Recovery of sums due as taxes :- Ail costs, damages, Penalties, compen sation, charges, fees, other than school fees, expenses, rents, contributions and other sums which under this Act or any other law or Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder or under any contract in resect of water supply or drianage made in accordance with this Act, the Rules or Bye-laws, are due by any person to the council, may, if there is no special provision in this Act for their recover, be demanded by bill as provided in the Rules in Schedule II and recover in the manner provided therein." A conjoint )reading of these provisions dues show that the Municipality has been empowered to recover by way of tax all costs, damages, penalties, compensation, charges, fees, etc., on making a demand, unless there is a special provision in the Act providing for recovery thereof. The question is, whether the amount due under the Act can be recovered by way of a tax under S. 364 of the Municipalities Act. It is needless to mention that the Municipalities Act is a complete code in itself in regard not only to the constitution of the Municipality but also its functions, its liabilities and also its right to recover the dues arising under the Municipalities Act. It is a special provision as regards municipalities are concerned Therefore, any liability arising under the Municipalities Act is treated to be a tax as enumerated under S.364 to be recovered by any of a bill but it has nothing to do with any amounts due to the Council under any Act other than the Municipalities Act. As regards the limitation, it has been provided under S. 365 of the Municipalities Act- There is a special procedure provided for distraint, for institution of the suit and for prosecution and limitation also has been provided. As regard the institution of a suit for recovery of the amounts due under the Municipalities Act, the extended period of six years has been provided for from the date on which the liability under the Municipalities Act arises. After the expiry of six years, the liability stands extinguished. In that context,, the limitation has been provided for. The question, therefore, is whether the compensation payable under Sub-S. (2) of S. 29 of the Act is an amount due under the Municipalities Act ? In my view, the extended contention cannot be given any counte nance. It is one thing to say that any amount due under the Municipalities Act is goveraed by the provisions of the Municipalities Act and yet another thing to say that any amount due under any other Act other than under the Municipalities Act also is lugged in for the purpose of limitation under S. 365 of the Municipalities Act. If the legislature intended to give such an extended period of limitation, the Legislature would have expressly mentioned the same under S.. 365 of the Municipalities Act. But no such extended limitation has been provided with respect to the claims or compensation or liability arising under provisions other than those of the Municipalities Act. Accordingly, I hold that the limitation provided under S. 365 of the Municipalities Act has no application to the claim arising under S. 29(2) of the Act. Therefore, the only Act that would be fallen back upon is the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act does not provide any express limitation as regards the claims of the Municipalities, or local authority under the Act. Only extended limitation was given to the claims of the State. Therefore, the general provision, namely, Article 113 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act applies and thereunder the Limitation is three years from the date when the cause of action arises. It is an admitted fact that the municipality handed over the Gandhinagar Market Area to the second respondent-market committee on and with effect from April 1, 1971. Therefore, the limitation begins to run from that date. Any suit filed within three years from the date of the cause of action would be with in limitation. In this case, the suit was laid on August 17, 1978. Therefore, in respect of claim within three years from that date, the suit would be within limitation and for other period the suit is clearly barred by limitation.