Back
1967 Supreme(Del) 105
Delhi High Court
S. K. KAPUR
Jai Lal - Appellant
Versus
Punjab State - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 149 of 1967
Decided On : 06/07/1967
Atma Ram, for Appellant; Man Mohan Nath, for Respondent.
Article 2 of the Limitation Act does not apply to acts done in pursuance of a rule that is ultra vires.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 2 - APPLICABILITY - ACT DONE IN PURSUANCE OF ENACTMENT - RULE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 76 OF PATIALA FOREST ACT - ULTRA VIRES - ACT NOT IN PURSUANCE OF ENACTMENT - ARTICLE 2 NOT APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff purchased trees in a forest from the Nagar Panchayat. Forest Ranger stopped him from removing the trees, claiming they belonged to the State. Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the State and the Panchayat. The High Court held that the rule under which the forest authorities acted was ultra vires. The trial court decided that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 2 of the Limitation Act. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that Article 2 of the Limitation Act did not apply because the act of the forest authorities was not done in pursuance of any enactment in force. The rule under which they acted was ultra vires and therefore void from the beginning.
Issues: Whether Article 2 of the Limitation Act applied to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 2 of the Limitation Act applies only if an act is alleged to be done in pursuance of any enactment in force at the time of the doing the Act. It is not enough for the defendants to show that they honestly believed that the enactment was in force. It must in fact be in force.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the District Judge was set aside, and the matter was remanded for decision on the other issues.
JUDGMENT :- Plaintiff Jai Lal, a contractor, purchased certain trees in the forest in Shamlat-Deh of Village Jhajha on February 15, 1958, for Rs. 1,005. When the plaintiff went to remove the trees which had been cut, the Forest Ranger Chail stopped him on the ground that the trees belonged to Punjab State and the Nagar Panchayat, the vendor of the trees, had no right to sell the same without the sanction and approval of the forest authorities. The plaintiff served a notice on the Panchayat but the latter assured him that it had such a right. The plaintiff again started the work of removal of trees on February 26, 1958, but the forest authorities did not permit him to do so. The said authorities ultimately on February 28, 1958, confiscated the entire wood lying stacked on the road side.
The Panchayat then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab challenging the act of the forest department which was allowed on October 16, 1958. The High Court of Punjab decided that Rule 10 framed under Section 76 of the Patiala Forest Act under which the forest authorities had prevented the plaintiff from cutting or removing the trees and confiscating the same was outside the scope of section 76 and therefore ultra vires the Act so far as third class forests were concerned. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the present suit against the State of Punjab and Nagar Panchayat, Jhajha claiming Rs. 1,200 from the first defendant being the loss suffered by him because of the illegal acts of the forest authorities.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Is the suit within time ?
1(a) Is the suit for damages on account of the action of the Range Officer competent against the Punjab State ?
2. Did plaintiff purchase by public auction 56 Kailoon and Cheel trees along with 1,000 maunds fallen wood for Rs. 1,005 on February 15, 1958, from the Nagar Panchayat Jhajha? If so, on what conditions the auction was held?
3. Did the forest Range Officer stop the work of the plaintiff and confiscated wood under the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs
7 and 10 of the plaint? If so with what effect?
4. If issue No. 3 is proved, did plaintiff suffer any damages? If so to what extent and is he entitled to recover the same from defendant No. 1?
5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled and against whom?
3. By judgment dated October 19, 1962, the trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff but all other issues in his favour. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate Court by judgment dated October 10, 1963, upheld the decision of the trial Court on issue No. 1 but did not decide the other issues.
4. It is conceded on behalf of the defendants-respondents that the forest in question was a third class forest; that the forest authorities acted under the said Rule 10 and that the said rule was ultra vires the Act as the Act did not authorize framing of such rule with respect to third class forests.
5. The controversy between the parties is very limited and is confined to the question whether Article 2 of the Indian Limitation Act or Article 49 thereof applies. Article 2 of the old Limitation Act corresponds more or less to Article 72 of the Limitation Act 1963 while Article 49 to Article 91 of the latter Act. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that if Article 49 applies, the suit would be within time. It is appropriate to read the provisions of Articles 2 and 49 :
Article 2
"For compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in India.
Ninety days.
When the act or omission takes place.
Article 49
For other specific movable property or for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining the same.
Three years
When the property is Wrongfully taken or injured, or when the detainer's possession becomes unlawful"
6. Article 2 is directed to afford protection to persons acting in pursuance of an ena
