BRAJAMOHAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's suit of 1951, claiming damage at Rs. 60,000/- against the State of Orissa, haying been dismissed, he has come up in the present appeal. THE plaintiff's case is that villages Rangalipali and Raghunathpali in the district of Sambalpur belonged to him; that there was a notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) issued by the Government of Orissa for carrying survey and other allied acts in connection with the Hirakud Dam Project, as provided by Sec. 4(2) of the said Act; that the officers authorised in the said notification to carry out the survey, instead of confining their actions to the actual survey, entered upon the plaintiff's land from April to October 1948 and caused unwarranted damages to it and fell trees, for which no payment was made or tendered; that in village Rengalipali, trees worth Rs. 42,766-8-0 were cut and in village Raghunathpali, trees worth Rs. 14,271/- were cut. Besides, certain pits were dug and roads were opened over the paddy fields which caused to the plaintiff damages worth Rs. 1090/-. Claiming interest at Rs. 1872-8-0, the plaintiff put his total claim at Rs. 60,000/-. THE defence was that the plaintiff was not the sole landlord of those villages; that the suit was barred by limitation; and that the notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. was defective. It was further pleaded that the Officers of the Central Water, Irrigation, Navigation and Canal Department (CWINC) had entered upon the plaintiffs land and fell trees and did the other works for purposes mentioned in the Central Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 and the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948, and no law or rule was violated by them, and whatever was done by them was done in good faith. THE correctness of the trees alleged to be cut and the lands alleged to have been dug was denied, and so also the valuation claimed in that respect. Nothing was stated in the written statement about what trees were actually cut or what damages were done to any land. THE defendant further claimed that whatever might have been done by those officers, the defendant was not liable for any damages; and that the suit was barred under the provisions of Orissa Act XVIII of 1948.

(2.) THE trial court held that the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of those villages; and that the suit was not barred by limitation, nor was the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. defective. It was, however, of the view that the suit was barred by the provisions of Orissa Act XVIII of 1948; that since the officers who were alleged to have done the unauthorised acts were not parties, their non-joinder was fatal to the suit, and that the plaintiff could not maintain a cause of action against the State of Orissa for acts done by officers against law and rules. As to the extent of the trees alleged to have been cut, since the defendant made no counter allegation nor adduced any counter evidence the trial court accepted the list given by the plaintiff to be correct. But the trial Court did not accept the valuation given by the plaintiff in respect of the damages done since there was no allegation on the plaintiff's side that the trees so cut had been removed by the officers who got them cut, and since the valuation claimed, according to the trial court, not only covered the damage for actual cutting, but the price of the cut timber also; as there was no clue to ascertain what was the extent of the loss in either case, the trial Court observed,