JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambashtha, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Heard Mr. Nipun Baxi, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2004 (decree signed on 14.07.2004) passed by Sub-judge VI, Palamu at Daltenganj, dismissing the Money Suit No. 7 of 2000.

4. Money Suit No. 7 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff for a money decree of Rs. 6,00,000/- against the defendants with interest pendent lite and thereafter till realization together with cost. The aforesaid amount was claimed by way of damage/compensation for the period from 1992 to 1999.

5. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint was that the defendant no. 1 sanctioned construction of embankment on eastern part of the river Koel from Mohammadganj to village-Kadal Kurmi within P.S. Haidarnagar, District Palamu under the supervision of defendant no. 2, for the purpose of saving the adjacent land from being sub-merged. In course of execution of the aforesaid scheme and project an embankment in village Kadal Kurmi was constructed and in this construction of embankment two holes or big gaps were left to be filled up later on, but neither these holes/gaps were filled up nor any protection was provided by the defendants to save the land mostly of the plaintiff from completely being sub-merged from the large quantity of water including flood water passing through the aforesaid two holes/gaps. These two gaps were 33 meters and 19 meters respectively. The action on the part of the defendants started causing loss and damage to the cultivable land of the plaintiff, which became useless since agricultural season of 1992. It was further the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had approached the authorities concerned in this regard and was assured that the gaps will be filled up and the land of the plaintiff would be saved from being sub-merged, but it was not done and only because of the assurances, there has been a delay in filing the suit. The details of the land of the plaintiff so adversely affected was given in the schedule of the plaint.

6. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the land involved in the suit was used by the plaintiff to produce Paddy, Wheat and Garma Mung and one acre of land produced on an average ten quintals of Paddy, five quintals of Wheat and two quintals of Garma Mung each year and the market rate of the Paddy was Rs. 400/- per quintal; Wheat was Rs. 600/- per quintal and Garma Mung was Rs. 1,200/- per quintal and the value of per quintal of Paddy, Wheat and Garma Mung rose from year to year. The plaintiff gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 17.06.1999, but there was no proper response and thereafter another notice dated 05.01.2000 was also given which was also not responded to and again the plaintiff finally issue notice dated 08.05.2000 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 through his Advocate, claiming a damage of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The notice was responded to by the defendant no. 2 vide Memo No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 and the defendant no. 2 in his memo admitted about two gaps having been left and the damage to the lands of the plaintiff. But, in spite of receipt of the notice, there was no fruitful response and the gaps continued to cause damage to the land of the plaintiff which ultimately led to filing of the suit. The other family members of the plaintiff were made as proforma defendants. As per the case of the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing the suit accrued on the dates on which the authorities were approached and on the date of notice issued under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 i.e. on 08.05.2000 and thereafter on 12.05.2000 when the defendants acknowledged the receipt of the notice by issuing Letter No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 in response to the notice