Action by Public Officer held without lawful order.

This Appeal raises an interesting question as to the liability in tort of a village patel, who seems to have seized certain paddy of the plaintiff under orders of the Tahsildar purporting to act under the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act XXIV of 1946). The 2nd defendant is the village patel and the 1st defendant is the Tahsildar. Both of them were sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000, being the damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by reason of the paddy belonging to her being seized and later fold to the South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores, Bellary. The facts of the case are that in March, 1948, P.W. 4 bought a cart-load of paddy for the plaintiff, who is his sister, and asked the cart-man, P.W. 5, to carry it to her. On the 6th March, 1948, while the paddy was being loaded into the cart on the public road, the 1st defendant, who was then the Tahsildar of Puttur, appeared on the scene accompanied by the 2nd defendant, the present appellant, the patel of the village: and then the Tahsildar questioned the cart-man, the 2nd defendant and one or two others and proceeded to seize the paddy. After seizing the paddy an yadhast was prepared by the Tahsildar, which is Exhibit B-2 The appellant, the 2nd defendant, removed the paddy on the instructions of the Tahsildar, and subsequently told it to the South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores, Bellary, and deposited the sale proceeds into the treasury. The plaintiff approached the Tahsildar for return of the paddy; but she could not get a return of the paddy. Therefore she sued both the Tahsildar and the appellant, the 2nd defendant, claiming Rs. 1,000, as damages for the pecuniary loss and mental distress suffered by her by reason of her being wrongfully deprived of the paddy, and her humiliation on account of her property being seized. The Tahsildar who is the 1st defendant died after the filing of the suit.

The defence of the appellant, the 2nd defendant, is that the seizure by the Tahsildar, the 1st defendant, was lawful and that under orders of superior officers he delivered the stock of paddy to the Co-operative Stores and deposited the sale proceeds in the treasury and that he only carried out the orders issued by the superior officers in the matter, as he was bound to obey as a village headman and that all the acts were official and done in the course of his legal discharge of his duty as a subordinate of the Government. The Courts below found that the appellant was not protected under any orders of the superior officers and granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 800.

The finding of the lower Court is that the seizure was not malicious and that the case of the plaintiff that the appellant instigated or otherwise procured the seizure has not been established. Though an attempt was made to justify the seizure on several grounds, it is now found that the seizure was not authorised by law, excepting that he acted in good faith under the directions of a superior officer, whom he was bound to obey. He does not support his action by any lawful order issued by the Tahsildar; nor has he been able to produce any order with reference to the seizure either of the Tahsildar or of any other superior officer of the Revenue Department like the Collector. In the circumstances it is for consideration whether the appellant could escape the liability for a seizure, which is wrongful, though not actuated by malice but carried out under the oral orders of his superior officer, the Tahsildar. The position of a village officer like the appellant, he being the village patel or headman, as provided under clause 2, heading 1, Chapter 1, Part 1 of the Village Officers’ and Ryots Manual is, as follows:

“Village officers are under the immediate orders of the Tahsildar. It is their duty to carry out promptly and faithfully all lawful orders that may be issued to them by Tahsildars, Deputy Tahsildars Revenue Inspector, and other supe