UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHAMMAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are appellants from a decision of the Additional Subordinate judge of Sambalpur, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff- respondent against the defendants-appellants to the extent of Rs. 8,902/6/-, finding them jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff-respondent for the said amount, suffered by the plaintiff-respondent, as loss,

(2.) THE relevant facts for the present purpose are shortly these: The plaintiff-respondent was a timber mereuant, carrying on business at Sambalpur since the year 1931. The plaintiff-respondent had stacked large quantities of timber on land belonging to the Bengal Nagpur Railway Administration (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-Railway) adjoining Sambalpur Railway Station, mostly for the purpose of supplying the same to the war Board. During the active prosecution of the Great War the plaintiff-respondent was constantly supplying timber which used to be loaded into waguns at Sambalpur railway Station. Due to paucity of wagons, huge quantities of timber could not be despatched and consequently had to be kept, for considerable length of time, in the Railway premises leased out to the plaintiff-respondent, the plots being plot nos. 235, 236, 237 and 246. In or about November 1946, the appellant-River development Division (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-River Development)applied to the railway authorities for lease of certain areas adjoining the plaintiffrespondent's plots of land and ultimately the lease was granted from January 1, 1947. The appellant-Railway gave delivery of possession of the leased portion of the railway land to the appellant-River Development about the end of December, 1946, the said lease having been for the purpose of keeping Heavy Equipment for the construction of the then proposed Hirakud Dam in Sambalpur District. On 3012-1946 the appellant-River Development, in writing, gave notice (Ext. B) which was as follows:

(3.) THE purpose of the said notice was that whoever might happen to have any timber in the yard, which the appellant-River Development took lease of from the appellant Railway, was requested to remove the same within 15-1-1947. The plaintiff-respondent, who was one of the timber merchants and had stacked a large quantity of timber in the railway premises, instead of confining his stacks to the plots allotted to him under agreements of licence stacked them also in undemarcated area without any authority whatsoever. The plaintiff-respondent, along with other timber merchants, was informed as aforesaid that they must by January 15, 1947 remove their timber, if any from the encroached areas. The plaintiff-respondent, however, neglected to do so to the detriment of the interests of the appellants. The plaintiff-respondent could not, as of right, encroach upon any portion of the railway land for stacking timber waiting to be loaded into wagons. The supply of wagons was regulated according to the rules of the appropriate department and was subject to the exigencies of time and conditions as then prevailed during the war. The plot of land which the appellant-Railway had leased out to the appellant-River Development as aforesaid, did not cover or include any portion of the laud which had been allotted to the plaintiff-respondent under the agreements of License. Although in the plaint, the plaintiff alleged such wrongful inclusion of some portion of the land leased out to him in the portion leased out to the appellant-River development, it was rightly conceded on behalf of the plain tiff-respondent in course of hearing of these appeals that no portion of the land, held by the plaintiff-respondent under the Agreements of licence, was mada over to the appellant-River Development.