Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of money instituted by Respondent No. 3 against the State of UP in the court of Judge Small Causes, Bijnor.
(2.) THE State acquired the Plaintiff Respondent's land under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (No. 1 of 1961). The State took possession of the land on 13 -11 -1962. Compensation was granted to the Plaintiff in the form of Bonds payable yearly. The first instalment of Rs. 2851.31 was payable on 13 -11 -1963 and the second instalment of Rs. 2951.09 was payable on 13 -11 -1964. The Bonds were prepared on 21 -7 -63 but were actually delivered to the Plaintiff on 20 -9 -1965. Because of the delay in the delivery of the Bonds, the Plaintiff was not able to collect the first two instalments on the due dates. He, therefore, sued for damages. The measure of damages was given as 3 -1/2% of the instalment amount of the Bonds, per year. He claimed a sum of Rs. 273/ at this rate for the period 13 -11 -1963 to 20 -9 -1965, the date when the first two instalments were actually paid to him. The suit was contested by the State which pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the claim was barred by Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It was also pleaded that the Plaintiff was himself responsible for the delay in the delivery of the Bonds.
(3.) THE trial court held that though the suit was for damages yet it was not barred by any of the entries in the Second Schedule of the Small Causes Courts Act and that the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was held that the Plaintiff was not guilty of causing any delay in the delivery of the bonds. Rule 30 was held as inapplicable to a case where the delay in payment was caused by the delay in delivery of the Bonds by the State. The suit was, ultimately, decreed for Rs. 269/ -.;