Back
1976 Supreme(AP) 232
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GANGADHARA RAO
P.Venkatram Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Collector, Medak District Sangareddy - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-76
A claim barred by limitation under the old law cannot be revived by a new law unless the new law specifically provides for retrospective operation.
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH GRAM PANCHAYATS ACT - SECTION 150 - RECOVERY OF AMOUNT FROM FORMER SARPANCH - LIMITATION - NEW SECTION 150 - NO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - CLAIM BARRED UNDER OLD SECTION 150 - CANNOT BE RECOVERED UNDER NEW SECTION 150.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a former Sarpanch, was accused of misappropriating funds during his tenure. An enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted in 1965, recommending recovery of the amount from him. However, no action was taken until 1975, when the Collector issued an order directing recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under the newly amended Section 150 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the claim was barred by limitation under the old Section 150, which had a three-year limitation period for filing a suit to recover the amount. Since no suit was filed within that period, the right to recover the amount was extinguished. The court further held that the new Section 150, which was enacted in 1974, did not have retrospective operation and could not revive the barred claim.
Issues: Whether the claim to recover the amount from the petitioner was barred by limitation under the old Section 150 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim was barred by limitation under the old Section 150, which had a three-year limitation period for filing a suit to recover the amount. Since no suit was filed within that period, the right to recover the amount was extinguished. The court further held that the new Section 150, which was enacted in 1974, did not have retrospective operation and could not revive the barred claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Collector's order directing recovery of the amount from the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was the Sarpanch of bakri Chapiyal Gram Panchayat from 2nd November, 1960 to 4th May, 1964. Thereafter one Smt. Vajramma was elected as Sarpanch and the petitioner did not hand over to her all the records. Some records were found missing and the petitioner submitted a report to the police as well as to the Department stating that they were thrown by his opponents in the well, which was found to be false. Be that as it may the fact remains that an enquiry was conducted by the Extension Offcer (Penchayats), siddipet and he submitted a report on 25th February, 1965 stating that the petitioner did not account for a sum of rs. 2,807-44 and, therefore proceedings could be taken for recovery of that amount from him. The Divisional panchayat Officer, Siddipet, also enquired into the natter and submitted a report on 11th April, 1965. The assistant Examiner of Local Fund accounts also repotted that he could not submit a report, since the records were not produced before him for audit.
( 3 ) WHILE so, a notice was given to the petitioner by the 1st respondent on 7th april, 1975 calling upon him to deposit that amount on or before 20th April, 1975 failing which proceedings would be taken to recover that amount. The petitioner states that he has submitted an explanation; but the 1st respondert says that he did not receive any explananation. Therefore, I have to take it that he did not submit any explanation. Thereafter on 23rd April, 1975 the collector issued an order under section 150 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram panchayats Act, as amended, directing the recovery of that amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Questioning that order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
( 4 ) IT is submitted, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that ur,der the old section 150 of the Andhra Pradesh gram Panchayats Act, the remedy to recover the amount from the petitioner is barred by limitation and therefore it could not be recovered under the new section 150, which came into force on 23rd April, 1974. Old section 150 reads as follows:"150. Liability of Sarpanch, and executive authority for loss waste and misapplication of property: (1) The Sarpanch or the executive authority shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property owned by or vested in the gram pancbayat if such loss, waste or misapplication is a direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct; and a suit for compensation may be instituted against him in any coort of competent Juriisdiction by the gram panchayat with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. (2) Every such suit shall be commenced within three years after the date on which the cause of action arose. "if we were to go by the terms of that section, it is evident that the gram panchayat could not recover that amount from the petitioner. The Extension officer, after enquiry, submitted his report on 25th January, 1955. The panchayat Officer submitted his report on 11th April, 1965. The Audit Officer expressed his inability to submit any report for want of records. Assuming that the cause of action arises when the liability of the petitioner is determined after enquiry, in this Case, it arose on 25th January, 1965 or 11th April, 1965 in wich case, a suit should have been filed within three years from those dates. Admittedly no such suit was filed. Therefore, the remedy, has become barred under old section 150 before it was 23rd April 1974.
( 5 ) THE next question is whether under section 150, as substituted, the amount could be recovered now. The amending act XVI of 1974 came into force on 23rd April, 1974. For section 150 of the Principal Act, the following section has been substituted;"150. Liability of Sarpanch, Upa sarpanch, executive authority for loss, waste or misappropriation of prope
