Back
1964 Supreme(AP) 150
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, VENKATESAM
J.Kuppanna Chetty, Ambati Ramayya Chetty, Co. - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Anantapur - Respondent
Decided On : 07-28-64
The Government is not vicariously liable for the torts committed by its servants in the exercise of sovereign powers or Sovereign Acts.
Headnote:
REVENUE RECOVERY ACT - ATTACHMENT - IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - PROCEDURE - LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT FOR TORTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC SERVANTS - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT FOR SOVEREIGN ACTS - SUIT AGAINST COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants, took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittan Subbayya Chetty, son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the year 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 S. 46 (2) of the Income-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 and decorticator, the engine, factory building, and the godowns of the factory, etc. , was effected, by the Tahsildar in the presence of the Deputy Tahsildar, the village munsif and karnam, by locking and sealing the factory buildings, and keeping a watch-man to guard the articles attached. It was made clear even at that time that the groundnut, etc. , stored by the plaintiffs could be removed by them in the presence of the village officers. The plaintiff-firm made attempts to obtain permission for working the factory by approaching the revenue authorities, but in vain. The plaintiff then moved the High Court by Writ Petition No. 550 of 1957 for a direction for the removal of locks and the same was ordered on their furnishing 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. The 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 after they offered to furnish security was mala fide, and that by reason of his unlawful conduct, they have suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 31,510. They, accordingly sued the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector of Anantapur, and the Tahsildar of Kadiri on the ground that they were jointly and severally liable.
Finding of the Court:
1. The attachment effected by the Tahsildar in the instant case is illegal as the procedure adopted by him is not in accordance with law. 2. The Government cannot be made liable for the tort committed by the Tahsildar in effecting the illegal attachment, as the act was done by the Tahsildar in the discharge of his duty imposed on him by the statute, viz. , the Madras Rev. Recovery Act. 3. The suit against the Collector and the Tahsildar in their official capacity is not maintainable as they are not corporations sole.
Issues: 1. Whether the attachment effected by the Tahsildar is illegal? 2. Whether the Government can be made liable for the tort committed by the Tahsildar in effecting the illegal attachment? 3. Whether the suit against the Collector and the Tahsildar in their official capacity is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The procedure adopted by the Tahsildar in effecting the attachment is not in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, which prescribes the procedure for attachment of immovable property. The property attached in the instant case is immovable property, as it includes the factory building and machinery embedded therein. 2. The Government cannot be made liable for the tort committed by the Tahsildar in effecting the illegal attachment, as the act was done by the Tahsildar in the discharge of his duty imposed on him by the statute, viz. , the Madras Rev. Recovery Act. The Government is not vicariously liable for the torts committed by its servants in the exercise of sovereign powers or Sovereign Acts. 3. The suit against the Collector and the Tahsildar in their official capacity is not maintainable as they are not corporations sole.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The Government shall be allowed costs only in the trial Court, but not in the appeal.
( 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 plaintiff 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. Vittan Subbayya Chetty, son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the year 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 S. 46 (2) of the Income-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 and decorticator, the engine, factory building, and the godowns of the factory, etc. , was effected, by the Tahsildar in the presence of the Deputy Tahsildar, the village munsif and karnam, by locking and sealing the factory buildings, and keeping a watch-man to guard the articles attached. It was made clear even at that time that the groundnut, etc. , stored by the plaintiffs could be removed by them in the presence of the village officers. The plaintiff-firm made attempts to obtain permission for working the factory by approaching the revenue authorities, 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 furnishing 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. The 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 after they offered to furnish security was mala fide, and that by reason of his unlawful conduct, they have suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 31,510. They, accordingly sued the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector of Anantapur, and the Tahsildar of Kadiri on the ground that they were jointly and severally liable.
( 2 ) THE defendants filed a common written statement, contending, inter alia, that the revenue department of the State of Andhra Pradesh is only a collecting agency for arrears of income-tax, and that it was open to the plaintiffs to approach the Income-tax Authorities either for the withdrawal of the Certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer under S. 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, or for stay of realisation of the arrears. As the machinery was under attachment, the plaintiffs could not be permitted to carry on the decorticating operations. By the time the security was furnished as per the orders of the High Court in Writ 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 the machinery, etc. , safe, and it was a bona fide action on the part of the Tahsildar. The defendants allowed the stock of groundnut in the godowns of the factory to be removed by the plaintiffs, and in fact it was removed. Neither the State Government nor the defendants are liable for any damages much less the amount claimed. The Government Officers acted in good faith and bona fide with a view to realise arrears of income-tax. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and he has no cause of action.
( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the action of the Government was not illegal, and that there was no tort committed by them in locking the engine room and the godowns. He also found that the damages suffered by the plaintiff would not amount to more than Rs. 2,800, but, inasmu
