Where a mistake in payments is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence on the date of cancellation of an earlier notification, a suit for refund of the amounts paid under the earlier notification is barred by limitation under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.:- The Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Virudhunagar, constituted or established by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 5 of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 (Act 23 of 1959), who is the defendant in O. S. 90 of 1968, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, is the appellant. The Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1959 came into force on 22-10-1962. But by a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette on 18-4-1962, pursuant to the G. O. Ms. No. 1054 (Food and Agricultural) dated 30-3-1962, the State Government directed the constitution of a market committee at Virudhunagar and markets at Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam and Sattur, in Ramanathapuram District. These committees were no doubt regularly constituted and established under the provisions of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (Act 20 of 1933). The main intendment of the Act is to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of commercial produce in the State of Tamil Nadu and in order to achieve that object, a machinery is set up to control the trade in commercial crops and impose restrictions on the carrying of such trade. Cotton is one of the commercial crops, which comes within the purview of Act 20 of 1933. Under the provisions of the Act, the State Government is entitled to exercise control over the purchase and sale of commercial crops including cotton, and declared certain areas to be specified areas within which such control could be exercised by the State.

In order to achieve the said purpose market committees are established by the State Government for every notified area. Once a market committee is set up; and a notified area is notified, then the sale and purchase of commercial crops could be carried on only in such places as are notified and in accordance with the condition of a licence issued by the appropriate authority. One of the provisions of the Act authorises the market committee to levy such fee on the notified commercial crops bought or sold in the notified area at such rates as it might prescribe. Act 20 of 1933 was repealed and practically re-enacted, though with slight modifications under the caption of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 (Act 23 of 1959). This Act came into force on 22-10-1962. There are provisions, which are very similar to the provisions of Act 20 of 1933, to which we have already made a reference. Under this Act also a market committee is established and an area is notified as the notified market area for the sale and purchase of agricultural produce and the market committee is enabled to impose a cess by way of sales tax on any notified agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area at the prescribed rate.

A saving provision is made under Section 38, which enabled the continuance of the notified area and the market committee under the provisions of Act 23 of 1959. What happened was that prior to the date when Act 23 of 1959 came into force, the State Government declared and published several notifications amongst which the notification published pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 1054 dated 30-3-1962 is relevant. Under this, Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam and Sattur were notified as market areas under the latter Act. Realising the mistake, a notification under G. O. Ms. No. 1052 Food and Agriculture, dated 30-3-1964 was made and published in the Gazette on 27-5-1964, cancelling the 1962 notification and on the same date, a re-declaration was made declaring certain areas in Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam and Sattur as notified market areas in respect of cotton, groundnut and chillies. In the present litigation, the cess collected for a period prior to 22-10-1962 is not in dispute, as obviously the said collection was made under Act 20 of 1933 and even otherwise such collections were validated by the passing of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets (Validation of Cess) Act, (Act 7 of 1963).

2. The bone of contention between the parties, however,