Mantharavadi Venkayya and Another vs The Secretary of State for India in Council

The suit in its alternative character is really a suit for damages for the wrongful refusal by the Collector appointed to acquire the land for public

purposes to make an award settling the amount of compensation payable to the Appellants in respect of the land which by virtue of a direction

made by the local Government u/s 17 of Act I of 1894 was taken possession of by the Collector before any award had been made and thus

became vested absolutely in the Government. The reason for the Collector''s refusal was that it had been subsequently discovered that the land

belonged to Government and not to the Appellants, and therefore the latter were not entitled to compensation. It is now found by both the lower

Courts that the land was the Appellants'' property and not the property of Government. But as the land vested absolutely in Government u/s 17

though in fact it was, as now found, the property of the Appellants, they are not entitled to recover the land but can only claim damages for breach

of statutory duty on the Collector''s part, the measure of damages being such compensation as would have been recovered by the Appellants if the

Collector in due discharge of his duty had proceeded under the Land Acquisition Act to make the award. The suit, however, was brought more

than one year after the Collector informed the Appellants that he was not going to make the award as the property belonged to Government and

the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. This Article 18 reproduces the

corresponding Article 20 of Act IX of 1871 which was passed shortly after the enactment of the Land Acquisition Act X of 1870, now replaced

by Act I of 1894. It seems to us clear by comparing Article 18 with Section 54 of Act X of 1870 that the suit contemplated by the article is one

for compensation for non-completion and the refusal to complete the acquisition referred to in the said Section 54 which does not include a case in

which the land has vested in Government. Section 48 of Act I of 1894 corresponds to Section 54 of Act X of 1870. In the present case the

acquisition has been completed in the sense that the property has absolutely vested in Government and in our opinion Article 18 does not govern

such a suit and, there being no other article applicable to the case, the general residuary Article 120 must be held to govern the case. That being so

the suit is not barred by limitation. We must allow the appeal with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court and, reversing the lower Appellate

Court''s decree, restore that of the District Munsif.