The word "person" in Section 43 of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1947 does not include the State. Therefore, Section 43 was not a bar to the suit against the State. Compensation can be claimed even in the absence of a specific provision in the statute allowing requisitioning for the making of compensation. The taking of property by the State under statutory powers does not deprive the subject of the right to compensation.

Kapur, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against a judgment and decree of Mr. Gobind Ram Budhiraja, Subordinate judge Ist Class, Amritsar, dated the 2-4-1949 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,125/12/- on account of the price of a jeep station wagon and insurance and registration charges and interest.

2. The plaintiffs on 19-9-1946 purchased a jeep for Rs. 3500/- from Pyara Lal and Sons Lahore. They expended a sum of Rs. 1,2507- on building a body for converting the jeep into a station wagon. Rs. 300/- were paid for insurance and Rs. 75/12/- is the interest on the amount of money spent by them.

3. A requisitioning order was made by Government requisitioning the jeep belonging to the plaintiffs. This original order is not on the file but an office copy Exh. D. 1 has been placed on the file and is at p. 46 of the paper book. It purports to be under Section 10(2) (c), Punjab Public Safety Act, 1947 and is in the following terms :

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by Clause (c) of Sub-section 2 of Section 10, Punjab Public Safety Act, 1947 , I, Nakul Sen, Dis-trict Magistrate, Amritsar hereby requisition Jeep Car No. PEL 6952 owned by Kapur Textile and Finishing Mills, Ghee Mandi Gate, Amritsar. The possession may be given to the Tehsil-dar Tarn Taran at once and a receipt may be obtained from him."

On 9-9-1947 a receipt Exh. P. 2 was written by the Tehsildar of Tarn Taran and it states :

"Received Jeep Car No. PBL 6952 owned by Kapur Textile Mills Amritsar for Government work in the Tarn Taran Tehsil."

There was some dispute in the Court below as to the genuineness of this document. We have seen the original and are of the opinion that this document has not been tampered with and its date is 9-9-1948 and not the 2nd as was alleged by the State. It is alleged that on 22-10-1947 the State offered to return this station wagon to the plaintiff. On 29-10-1947 the plaintiff gave a notice purporting to be under Section 80, Civil P. C. in which it is stated that the Station House Officer of B Division Amritsar asked the plaintiffs to lake back the station wagon which was lying in a workshop near Ghatiwind Gate Amritsar and when the plaintiffs went to the place they found that all the important parts of the jeep were missing from the engine and that it could not be repaired and therefore they refused to take it in the condition in which it was sought to be returned. On 3-11-1947 Assistant Sub-inspector Ram Lal is stated to have brought the station wagon into the premises of the plaintiffs. It was really towed into the premises. The plaintiffs refused to take it but it was left there.

On the same day a letter was sent by the plaintiffs to the Collector stating that the jeep was lying in the premises of the plaintiffs mills but he would not be responsible nor would this estop him from bringing a suit. Again on 17-1-1948 the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the District Magistrate Exh. P. 7 in which it is stated that the station wagon was sent to the I. N. A. workshop, "under orders and directions of S. Madhusudhan Singh Treasury Officer and Petrol Rationing Officer Amrjtsar, who was acting on your behalf."

With this letter was attached the estimate for repairs and report of the workshop stating that the jeep could not be repaired.

4 On 14-4-1948 the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,1257- stating all the facts that I have given above and alleging that the jeep was in an absolutely "wrecked condition", that the plaintiffs approached the Treasury Officer in December 1947 and under his orders it was sent to the I. N. A. workshop Amritsar but it was found irreparable and they claimed the amount calculated as I have given in the very beginning.

5. The State pleaded that Section 10, East Punjab Moveable Property (Requisitioning) Act of 1947 was a bar to the suit. This Act however did not come into force till December 1947. Other allegations were denied and it was pleaded that t