Polina Achanna and Others vs Madipati Venkataramana

The suit in this case was instituted u/s 12 of Act VTQ of 1865 for recovery of possession of the land from which the plaintiff, a ryot, was

ejected by the land-holder in pursuance of an order obtained u/s 10 of Act VIII of 1865, in consequence of the plaintiff''s failure to accept a patta

which he was directed to accept by the Revenue Court. The plaintiff claimed also damages sustained by him in consequence of the unlawful

eviction. The order of eviction was passed by the Revenue Court on the 20th January 1906 and was carried out on the 22nd contrary to the

provisions of Section 70 of the Act, which enacts that the tenant shall not be evicted before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order.

The District Court held that the suit was not maintainable u/s 12 of the Act and in so holding it was right, as that Section only provides that no

tenant shall be ejected without an order u/s 10 or Section 41. But the learned Vakil for the appellants contends that as the eviction was unlawful,

the suit is maintainable in so far as the claim for damages is concerned, u/s 49 of the Act, which provides that ""any person deeming himself

aggrieved by any proceedings taken under colour of this Act shall be at liberty to seek redress by filing a summary suit for damages before the

Collector."" This contention must prevail. Mr. Seshagiri Iyer, for the respondent, contends that Section 49 is not applicable to the case, as the

expression ""proceedings"" must be understood to mean ""proceedings taken by a public officer or a Court,"" and no proceedings of a public officer

are impeached by the plaintiff as improper, and be refers to Section 76 which speaks of ""a judgment of a Collector in proceedings under this Act.

We cannot accept this argument. Section 76 shows no more than that these are ""proceedings"" under the Act in which Collector may pass ""a

judgment."" It does not show that there are no proceedings in which he would not do so. The Act authorises the land-holder also to take several

proceedings without resort to the Collector. He can tender pattas and distrain property for arrears of rent on his own responsibility, and he may be

guilty of various illegalities and irregularities in doing so. He may distrain property when there are no arrears, or without properly tendering a patta

which the tenant is bound to accept. He may distrain without making a demand of the arrears as required by law. He may act in violation of the

various provisions relating to distraint. Suits have been entertained in all these cases: See Rajah Chelikani Venhatagopala Rayon Garu v.

Narayanasami Reddi 27 M.P 210; Velagaleti Ramakrishnayya v. Suramani Bapayya Appa Row 7 M.P 430. We must hold that the claim for

damages is maintainable. We reverse the decrees of the lower Courts and remand the suit to the Court of first instance for fresh disposal according

to law, in so far as it relates to the claim for damages. Each party will bear his own costs throughout up to date.