A suit for damages for demolition of a shop is barred by limitation under Article 2 of the Limitation Act, 1908, if the demolition was ordered by a public servant in good faith under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954.

1. -This first appeal by the plaintiff Badshah Ram is directed against the judgement and decree of the Additional District Judge, Baran, dated 11.12.71 dismissing the suit for damages.

2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows. Two parcels of land in village Anta, measuring 13 yards. by 6 yards. & 13 yards, by 3 yards. adjoining each other and constituting one plot measuring 13 yards by 9 yards, were allotted to the plaintiff-appellant on 22.8.1956 and 24.5.1956 respectively by the Tehsildar, Anta, for purposes of a tea shop. The plaintiff in December, 1960 constructed a shop over this plot of land by raising three walls on the sides and pillars with lintels on the front. On 16.1.61, respondent No. 3 Shri Harbanshlal Gupta, Assistant Colonisation Officer, Anta, lodged a complain under Section 23 (b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, alleging that the shop was constructed without permission of the competent authority. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings respondent No. 3 on 19.1.61 in compliance of the order dated 18.1.61 passed, by respondent No. 2 Shri I.N. Kaul, Director of Colonisation, Chambal Project, Kota, demolished the walls and lintels of the shop. The plaintiff, therefore, after notice under section 80 CPC brought a suit out of which this appeal arises on 16.3.64 claiming Rs. 7200/- as damages for unlawful and unauthorised demolition of the shop.

3. The suit was resisted by the State of Rajasthan which traversed all material allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the Tehsildar Anta, had no authority to allot land to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the Director, Colonisation, passed the order dated 18.1.61 because the plaintiff disobeyed the notice issued by the Assistant Colonisation Officer, respondent No.2, dated 2.1.61 and 14.1.61 Certain more pleas such as limitation and jurisdiction were also raised. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred under Section 26 of the Act. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:-

(1) D;k oknh us jktLFkku jkT; ls okn i= ds pj.k ua0 2 o 3 esa mYysf[kr nks Hkwfe [k.M ,d 78 oxZ dk 18-50@& :0 esa fnukad 28&2&1956 dh o nwljk 38 oxZ dk 8-75@& :0 esa fnukad 28&5&1956 dks pk; dh nqdku yxkus gsrq eksy fy;s\ (oknh ij) (2) ;fn fopkFkZ fo"k; ua0 1 dk fu.kZ; oknh ds i{k esa gksa rks D;k rglhynkj vUrk dks mDr Hkwfe pk; dh nqdku yxkus ds fy, cspus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk\ (izfr ua0 1 ij) (3) D;k nksuksa Hkw[kaM eksy nsus ds i'pkr~ oknh us mu ij 6000-00@& :0 dh iDdh bekjr LVky ds okLrs cuokbZ (oknh ij) (4) D;k oknh dh lquokbZ fd;s fcuk izfroknh gjcatyky us mDr bekjr oknh dks voS/kkfud :i ls <+kg fMeksys'k dj fn;kA (oknh ij) (5) izfroknh gjca'kyky ds bekjr rqM+okus ls fdruh gkfu oknh dks gqbZ o D;k ml ds fy, rhuksa izfroknhx.k ftEesnkj gSA (oknh) (6) D;k bLrxklk eqrkftdj en ua0 1 okn i= is'k gksus ds ckn MkbjsDVj dksyksukbls'ku us viuh vkKk rkjh[k 18&1&61 oS/kkfud rkSj ij nh vkSj mfpr rkSj ij rkehj rqyokbZ xbZA (izfroknh ij) (7) D;k nkok vof/k ds ckgj gSa\ (izfroknh ua0 1) (8) D;k bl nkos dks ;g U;k;ky; lek;r ugha dj ldrh (izfr ua0 1) (9) D;k ;g nkok pykus ;ksX; ugha gSa\ (izfr ua0 1) (10) D;k izfroknh us bekjr oknh fMeksfy'k djus ls igys oknh dks dksbZ uksfVl fn;k\ (11) nknjlh D;k gksxh\
On consideration of the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge recorded the following material findings:-

1. Issues nos. 1 and 2 have no material bearing in the suit as the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land even after the demolition and the question of the plaintiff's title is irrelevant in the present case.

2. Issue no. 3 has no relevancy as the total construction of the shop was not demolished.

3. Village Anta forms a part of the Rajasthan Chambal Project area and the Rajasthan Colonisation Act was made applicable to it in the year 1957.

4. Construction of the shop was illegal as no prior permission was sought or obta