Back
1964 Supreme(AP) 149
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, VENKATESAM
J.KUPPANNA CHETTY, AMBATI RAMAYYA CHETTY and CO. - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF ANANTAPUR - Respondent
Decided On : 07-28-64
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - ATTACHMENT - PROCEDURE - ILLEGAL ATTACHMENT - TORT - GOVERNMENT LIABILITY - SUIT AGAINST COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY - SUIT AGAINST COLLECTOR - ARREARS OF INCOME-TAX - SUIT AGAINST STATE GOVERNMENT.
Headnote:
REVENUE RECOVERY ACT - ATTACHMENT - PROPERTY ATTACHED - IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - PROCEDURE FOR ATTACHMENT - ILLEGAL ATTACHMENT - TORT COMMITTED BY TAHSILDAR - GOVERNMENT NOT LIABLE FOR TORT COMMITTED BY TAHSILDAR - SUIT AGAINST COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY NOT MAINTAINABLE - SUIT AGAINST COLLECTOR DISMISSED ON ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT HE HAD NOT AUTHORISED TAHSILDAR TO EFFECT ATTACHMENT IN ILLEGAL MANNER - ARREARS OF INCOME-TAX DUE TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - SUIT AGAINST STATE GOVERNMENT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants, took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory at Kadiri. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittal Subbayya chetty son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 to the extent of Rs. 20,921-10-0 and Rs. 9, 035-4-0 respectively. The Income-Tax Officer issued a certificate under section 46 (2) of the Incom-tax Act. 1922, to the Collector of Bellary for realisation of the said arrears. The Tahsildar. Kadiri, was directed by the Collector to attach the said factory, buildings and machinery, which he did on 17-6-57. The attachment of the boiler engine decorticator, the engine factory building, and the godowns of the fectory etc. , was effected, by the Tahsildar in the presence of the Deputy tahsildar the village munsiff and Karnam, by locking and sealing the factory building- and keeping a watch-man to guard the articles attached. It was made clear even at that time that the ground-nut etc. , stored by the plamtihs could be removed bv them in the presence of the village officers. The plalntf t-rirm made atcmpts to obtain permission for working the factory by approaching the revenue anthorities, but in vain. The plaintiff then moved this court by writ petition no 550 of 1957 for a direction for the removal of locks, and the same was ordered on their burnishing security in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- but by the time the security was furnished the lease period had expired on 30-9 1957. Ta plaintiffs case is that the procedure followed by the Tahsildar in locking the factory was contrary to law and his refusal to remove the locks even atrer they ottered to furnish security was mala fide, and that by reason of his uniawful conduct, they have suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 31, 500/- I hey, accordingly sued the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector of Anantapur, and the Tatisildar of kadiri on the ground that they were jointly and severally liable.
Finding of the Court:
The attachment effected in the instant case is illegal. The Tahsildar in the discharge of the duties imposed on him under the statute, viz. , the Madras Revenue Recovery act, effected the attachment illegally and caused damage to the plaintiff and hae therefore committed a wrong or a tort even if he acted bonafide. The Government cannot be made liable for a those liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be subject. The Government is not liable for a wrong done by its servants in the course of official duties, unless the wrong was expressly authorised or later ratified by it. The suit against defendants 1 and 3 in their official capacity must be dismissed. The suit against the first defendant must be dismissed on the additional ground, that, the Collector had not authorised the Tahsildar to effect the attachment in the illegal manner.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: The property attached is immovable property, and the attachment effected is illegal. The procedure adopted by the Tahsildar in the present case is illegal. The machinery viz. , boiler engine and the decorticator embedded in the earth are immovable property. The attachment effected in the instant case is illegal. The Tahsildar in the discharge of the duties imposed on him under the statute, viz. , the Madras Revenue Recovery act, effected the attachment illegally and caused damage to the plaintiff and hae therefore committed a wrong or a tort even if he acted bonafide. The Government cannot be made liable for a those liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be subject. The Government is not liable for a wrong done by its servants in the course of official duties, unless the wrong was expressly authorised or later ratified by it. The suit against defendants 1 and 3 in their official capacity must be dismissed. The suit against the first defendant must be dismissed on the additional ground, that, the Collector had not authorised the Tahsildar to effect the attachment in the illegal manner.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge anantapur, in O. S. No. 8 of 1958. The facts necessary for the determination of the questions arising in this case are as follows : the plaintiffs, J. Kuppanna Chetty, Ambati Ramayya Chetty and Company of Kadiri, is a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants. They took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory at Kadiri, known by the name of Vittal Seshappa Chetty Sons, groundnut factory. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittal Subbayya chetty son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the years 1951 52 and 1952-53 to the extent of Rs. 20,921-10-0 and Rs. 9, 035-4-0 respectively. The Income-Tax Officer issued a certificate under section 46 (2) of the Incom-tax Act. 1922, to the Collector of Bellary for realisation of the said arrears. The Tahsildar. Kadiri, was directed by the Collector to attach the said factory, buildings and machinery, which he did on 17-6-57. The attachment of the boiler engine decorticator, the engine factory building, and the godowns of the fectory etc. , was effected, by the Tahsildar in the presence of the Deputy tahsildar the village munsiff and Karnam, by locking and sealing the factory building- and keeping a watch-man to guard the articles attached. It was made clear even at that time that the ground-nut etc. , stored by the plamtihs could be removed bv them in the presence of the village officers. The plalntf t-rirm made atcmpts to obtain permission for working the factory by approaching the revenue anthorities, but in vain. The plaintiff then moved this court by writ petition no 550 of 1957 for a direction for the removal of locks, and the same was ordered on their burnishing security in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- but by the time the security was furnished the lease period had expired on 30-9 1957. Ta plaintiffs case is that the procedure followed by the Tahsildar in locking the factory was contrary to law and his refusal to remove the locks even atrer they ottered to furnish security was mala fide, and that by reason of his uniawful conduct, they have suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 31, 500/- I hey, accordingly sued the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector of Anantapur, and the Tatisildar of kadiri on the ground that they were jointly and severally liable. The defendants filed a common written statement, contending, inter alia, that the revenue department of the State ot Andhra Pradesh is only a collecting, agency for arrears of Income-Tax, and that it was open to the plamtiffs to approach the Income-Tax authorities either for the withdrawal ot the Certificate issued by the Income-Tax Officer under Sec. 46 (2) of the Income-Tax Act, or for stay of realisation of the arrears. As the machinery was under attachment, the plaintiffs could rot be permitted to carry on the decordcating operations. By the time me security was furnished as per the orders of the High Court in Wirt Petition No. 550 of 1957 the lease period had expired, and hence the factory was not released, it became necessary to lock the factory in order to keep tne machinery etc safe and it a bona fide action on the part ot the Tahsildar. The derendants allowed the stock of groundnut in the godowns of the factory to be removed by the defendants are liable for any damages much less the amoun ariminal or Income-Tax. The plaintiff is not entitled to any rehet, and he has no cause of action. The learned Subordinate Judge held mat the action of he Government was not illegal, and that there was no tort committed by them m locking the engine not illegal, and that there was no tort committee by them in frocking the roomand the godowns. He also found that thedamages sutfered by theplanitiff tahsildar was not illegal, he dismissed the suit. Aganist this decree and judgment, the piaintiffs have prefened this appeal. Against this decree and judgment, the piantiffs hav
