The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public servant's act, performed in the discharge of public duties, requires statutory notice under the relevant Act. Failure to provide such notice renders the suit not maintainable and may also lead to it being barred by limitation.

Headnote:
Public Servant - Demolition of Hotel - Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - S. 401(2) - S. 80, C. P. C. - S. 197(1) of Cr. P. C. - [S. 401(2), S. 80, C. P. C., S. 197(1)] - The appellant, a public servant, demolished a hotel in his capacity as Administrator of Municipal Corporation, Sagar. The court held that the act was performed in the discharge of his public duties, and therefore, statutory notice under S. 401(2) of the Act should have been mandatorily given to the appellant. The suit was dismissed as it was not maintainable without the statutory notice and was also barred by limitation.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a public servant, demolished a hotel in his capacity as Administrator of Municipal Corporation, Sagar. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages, alleging that the appellant acted without authority and demolished the hotel without serving any prior notice.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant acted in the discharge of his public duties as a public servant and got demolished the hotel of the plaintiff in his capacity as such. The suit was dismissed as it was not maintainable without the statutory notice and was also barred by limitation.
Issues: The issues included whether the appellant had illegally demolished the hotel, whether the suit was maintainable without statutory notice, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant acted in the discharge of his public duties as a public servant and got demolished the hotel of the plaintiff in his capacity as such. The suit was dismissed as it was not maintainable without the statutory notice and was also barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The parties were left to bear their own costs of the appeal.

V. K. AGRAWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree D/- 16-12-97 in Civil Suit No. 7-B of 1996, by First Additional District Judge, Sagar, whereby the Claim in suit of plaintiff/respondent No. 1, for damages was decreed against the appellant.

( 2 ) THE facts no longer in dispute are that the appellant on the relevant time i. e. , in December 1991 was posted at Sagar and was holding three charges, viz. , Administrator Municipal Corporation; Additional Collector and Settlement Officer. An encroachment removal drive was carried out by the Municipal Corporation, Sagar in December, 1991. It has also not been disputed in this appeal that the structure of the 'lily Hotel and Restaurant' run by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was also demolished during the said drive.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case stated in brief was that he was running the aforementioned hotel. The said hotel was situated on the land of Dev Janki Raman Trust, Sagar, at Civil Lines, Near Collectorate, Sagar. He had obtained tap connection from the Municipal Corporation Sagar for the said Hotel. The said tap connection was illegally disconnected. The plaintiff therefore filed Civil Suit No. 22-B/90 against the Municipal Corporation, Sagar. It was also averred by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that lot of pressure was brought upon him, by the Municipal Corporation, Sagar for compromise in the said suit to which the plaintiff did not agree, hence, the then Administrator-the present appellant got annoyed with plaintiff/respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) IT was further averred by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, that Prem Narayan Choubey, the father of plaintiff/respondent No. 1, had complained to the Commissioner, Sagar, against the appellant, for non-supply of copy in a case decided by the latter as Settlement Officer. Hence, the appellant was annoyed with the plaintiff and his father. Therefore, during the encroachment removal drive, in which the encroachment on the land of Municipal Corporation and Government only were to be removed, the appellant without any legal authority on 21-12-91 got demolished the Hotel run by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, by buldozer resulting in loss of property and causing damage to the plaintiff.

( 5 ) IT was further averred by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that no prior notice was served by the appellant to plaintiff/respondent No. 1, before the said demolition. It was also averred that the appellant had mis-used his offices, which he held under defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the State Government and Municipal Corporation and by, using the Police force as also the Personnel of P. W. D. and Municipal Corporation, had caused damage as above to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. According to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 his father Prem Narayan Choubey served a notice under S. 80, C. P. C. to the defendants. Since there was non-compliance of notice, hence the suit was filed for recovery of damages of Rs. 80,568/ -.

( 6 ) THE defendants resisted the suit and denied the aforesaid allegations.

( 7 ) THE learned trial Court framed issues as to whether the appellant/defendant No. 3 on 21-12-1991 had illegally demolished Lily Hotel of plaintiff/respondent No. 1, causing damage to the furniture and articles kept therein and as to whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of statutory notice under S. 80, C. P. C. and under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short ). An issue regarding quantum of damages claimed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was also framed.

( 8 ) THE trial Court held that Lily Hotel was illegally demolished no 21-12-91, and due to the said demolition articles kept in the Hotel were also destoyed. The trial Court also held that in the absence of statutory notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and under the 'act', the suit was not maintainable, as against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the State of M. P. and Commissioner. Municipal Corporation, Sagar respectively. However, it was held that the app