GRAM SABHA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Gram Sabha instituted the suit giving rise to this second appeal for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from realizing the penalty amount of Rs. 4,119/- imposed for the wrongful user of water by causing breach in Rajbha Hathin on April 6, 1963.

(2.) The material allegations made in the plaint were that the alleged breach occurred because the bank of the minor gave way under pressure of water; that none of the members of the Gram Sabha was responsible for the same and, therefore, order passed by the Canal Authorities imposing the penalty was illegal and unwarranted. The suit was contested by the respondents who controverted the allegations made in the plaint and averred that the suit was barred by time. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court upheld the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal, the findings of the trial Court were reversed and the suit dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated August 9, 1967. Aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.

(3.) It is not necessary to discuss the merits of the controversy between the parties because the impugned judgment has to be upheld on the point of limitation alone. The order imposing the penalty was passed on April 11, 1963 whereas the present suit was filed on July 29, 1965. The learned Additional District Judge found that limitation for filing the suit was one year as the suit was governed by Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter called the Act). The learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that the suit would fall under Article 120 of the Act and the limitation for filing the same would be six years from the date of the said order. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Article 14 of the Act prescribes limitation of one year for setting aside an order of an officer of the Government in his official capacity and this limitation commences from the date of the said order. It is not disputed that the Canal Authorities had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The suit, therefore, would be governed by the provisions of Article 14 and not by the residuary Article 120 of the Act. Moreover, this matter is fully covered by the decision of this Court in The State of Punjab and others v. Ujagar Singh and others, 1967 1 ILR(P&H) 773 wherein it was held that Article 14 governs such a suit.