GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ram Labhaya, H.Deka, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
Versus
Ram Kamal Bezbarua -Respondent
First Appeal No. 27 of 1950
Decided On : 21-11-1952
The Government of India was not liable for the torts of its servants and employees under the Government of India Act, 1935, and compensation for any loss or damage could not be claimed from it.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs' case was that no part of the fishery was requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules before occupation. There is no denial of this fact. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the case found that there was nothing to indicate that any steps were taken to requisition any part of the fishery for use and occupation under the Defence of India Rules. Mr. Ahmed does not dispute this fact. His case is that though the Government had the power to requisition the property under the Defence of India Rules (vide S. 2(24), Defence of India Act, read with Rule 79, Defence of India Rule), its power to occupy the property in an emergency like war or rebellion in the exercise of its sovereignty remained in tact and the exercise of this power could not be questioned in Courts of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Government of India was not liable for the torts of its servants and employees under the Government of India Act, 1935, and compensation for any loss or damage could not be claimed from it.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against defendants 2 and 3 and the suit is liable to be dismissed against them for want of cause of action? 2. Whether any wilful damage was done to the fishery in the manner alleged by the plaintiffs? 3. Whether in view of the situation created by the war, the occupation by Army of the Banks of Naw Pukhuri is illegal? 4. What rights were acquired by the plaintiffs to the Nawpukhuri including the banks? 5. What was the state of the fishery at the time the Army occupied the banks of the tank? 6. Did the Army prevent the plaintiffs in following the normal working or in any way interfere with Bans, etc.? 7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent and on what count? Additional issue:- 8. Whether defendant 1 is a Sovereign and, as such is liable for any tort?
Ratio Decidendi: The Government of India was not liable for the torts of its servants and employees under the Government of India Act, 1935, and compensation for any loss or damage could not be claimed from it.
Final Decision: Appeal partially allowed.
(2) The guilt was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 80,200/- This sum was claimed for trespass on and damage done to Nawpookhri Fishery of which the plaintiffs were the lessees. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of the late C. K. Bezbaruah, plaintiff 4 (minor) is his grandson, and plff. 5 is the widow of late S. N. Bezbarua. All the piffs. claim to be the joint owners of the fishery known as Nawpookhri Fishery. C. K. Bezbarua died in August 1939. His right, title and interest in the fishery devolved on the piffs. and one Krishna Kamal Bezbarua who also subsequently sold his interest to the piffs.
(3) C. K. Bezbarua in his life-time obtained a lease of Nawpookhri and Ailajan Fisheries from the Government of Assam for a. period of 3 years from 1-4-36 to 31-3-39. Plaintiffs' case is that in order to carry on the fishery on a commercial and scientific basis, late C. K. Bezbarua had to spend a considerable sum of money in reclaiming the said tank (Nawpookhri) and for improvements necessary to give effect to the scheme. As the three years' period of the lease was not enough for fully developing the fishery, the late C. K. Bezbarua got an extension of the lease for a further period of seven years. Besides the Nawpoofchri and Ailajan fisheries, the late C. K. Bezbarua got on lease all the Jamunas surrounding the Nawpookhri tank. A lease of the western halveg of the northern and southern banks of the tank was, also obtained by him. These leases ran from year to year.
(4) It is claimed that late C. K. Bezbarua constructed fish-nurseries with auxiliary installations at considerable expense. The construction of nurseries involved the putting up of a high embankment following the middle line of the Jamunas on all sides of the main tank (Nawpookhri). Thus the entire Jamuna was divided into two parts-the outer and the inner. The late C. K. Beztaarua then converted a portion of the inner Jamuna, namely, the western half of the northern Jamuna and the northern half of the western Jamuna, into a fish-nursery, and provided for the outlet of the fish in the fish-nursery by having a fish-tight gate constructed in the middle of the inner western Jamuna. Parts of the main tank were also enclosed for service as nurseries. These nurseries also were equipped with fish-tight gates. A bungalow and other dwelling houses were constructed on the banks after clearing the jungle. The investments came to about Rs. 20,000/- a year.
(5) In 1936-37 the late C. K. Bezbarua purchased a very large number of Row and Bahu spawns from Amta and Rajshahi in Bengal. These spawns were reared in the fish nurseries. The plaintiffs, after the death of C. K. Bezbarua, made further improvements, in the Fishery. They imported about 4,00,000/(four lacs) of Row and Bahu spawns in 1940 despite transport difficulties. In 1941 local Row and Bahu spawns numbering about 8000 (eight thousand) were put into the nursery tanks.
(6) It is alleged tin or about 10-3-1944, a company of United States Army men in furtherance of the prosecution of the War, occupied the eastern bank of Nawpookhri tank. They pitched their tents there. Plaintiffs' men were prevented by the armymen from going to the eastern Jamuna, and so fishing had to be abandoned in that part of the fishery. The armymen later on extended their occupation up to the middle of the northern bank and installed
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.