STATE OF M P Vs. SHYAM KISHORE AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shyam Kishore Agrawal (the respondent in the present appeal) filed a suit in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mandla, for compensation for wrongful conversion of his goods. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 2-B of 1958. It was earlier dismissed on a preliminary finding that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain it was barred under the provisions of section 220 (q) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act. The finding was challenged in appeal by Shyam Kishore Agrawal and this Court by its order dated the 5th October, 1962, set it aside, directing the Additional District Judge to frame all the issues of fact and law that arise in the case, and then decide upon the question of jurisdiction after recording evidence. The case was remitted to the trial Court with the following observations:

(2.) The Additional District Judge proceeded to record evidence and ultimately found that the Revenue Courts had assumed jurisdiction on no legal evidence whatsoever on the breaches of rules complained of and that the seizure and confiscation of the plaintiff's logs of timber by the Revenue Authorities was unlawful. Consequently he gave a decree for Rs. 2,32000/- in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment, the defendant (State of Madhya Pradesh) has come up in appeal.

(3.) The appeal was heard on 22-4-1971, and the question that cropped up was whether a claim for damages could lie against the State when seizure and confiscation was done in the exercise of, or purported exercise of statutory powers. The Court thought it proper to invite findings on these issues of law. The Court retained seisen of the appeal and remitted certain issues for findings of the District Court. The findings that have been received, are against the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge found that the seizure and confiscation was validly made under the sanction of the lawful authority and, therefore, the State was absolutely immune from the liability. There is thus an apparent conflict between the findings earlier recorded by the District Court and the findings now transmitted to this Court. On these findings, the inevitable result was that the plaintiff's suit deserved to be dismissed.