S.N.MODI, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal by the plaintiff Badshah Ram is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Baran, dated 11 -12 -71 dismissing the suit for damages.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are as follows. Two parcels of land in village Anta, measuring 13 yds. by 6 yds. and 13 yds, by 3 yds. adjoining each other and constituting one plot measuring 13 yds. by 9 yds, were allotted to the plaintiff -appellant on 22 -8 -1956 and 24 -5 -1956 respectively by the Tehsildar, Anta, for purposes of a tea shop. The plaintiff in December 1960 constructed a shop over this plot of land by raising three walls on the sides and pillars with lintels on the front. On 16 -1 -61, respondent No. 3 Shri Harban -shlal Gupta, Assistant Colonisation Officr, Anta, lodged a complaint Under Section 23(b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, alleging that the shop was constructed without permission of the competent authority. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings respondent No. 3 on 19 -1 -61 in compliance of the order dated 18 -1 -61 passed, by respondent No. 2 Shri I.N Kaul, Director of Colonisation, Chambal Project, Kota, demolished the walls and lintels of the shop. The plaintiff, therefore, after notice Under Section 80 CPC brought a suit out of which this appeal arises, on 16 -3 -64 claiming Rs. 7200/ - as damages for unlawful and unauthorised demolition of the shop. The suit was resisted by the State of Rajasthan which traversed all material allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the Tehsildar. Anta. had no authority to allot land to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the Director, Colonisation, passed the order dated 18 -1 -61 because the plaintiff disobeyed the notice issused by the Assistant Colonisation Officer, respondent No. 2, dated 2 -1 -61 and 14 -1 -61' Certain more pleas such as limitation and jurisdiction were also raised. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred Under Section 26 of the Act. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues: On consideration of the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge recorded the following material findings: 1. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 have no material bearing in the suit as the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land even after the demolition and the question of the plaintiff's title is irrelevant in the present case. 2. Issue No. 3 has no relevancy as the total construction of the shop was not demolished. 3. Village Anta forms a part of the Rajasthan Chambal Project area and the Rajasthan Colonisation Act was made applicable to it in the year 1957. 4. Construction of the shop was illegal as no prior permission was sought or obtained by the plaintiff from the competent officer. 5. Shri I.N. Kaul, respondent No. 2, had no power to order demolition of the shop Under Section 24(iii) of the Act as he was not the Collector under the Act. 6. The action of Shri I.N. Kaul, respondent No. 2 in ordering demolition of the shop without any show cause notice to the plaintiff was against the principles of natural justice and violation of basic right was not to be condemned unheard. 7. The defendants are liable to pay Rs. 1300/ - as damages for the loss arising out of the demolition of the shop and Rs. 200/ - on account of loss in business. 8. The suit is governed either by Article 2 or Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and was barred by time. 9. The suit was triable by a civil court and it was not barred Under Section 25 or 26 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge in the result dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff has preferred this appeal
(3.) THE findings arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge would reveal that the suit was mainly dismissed on the ground of limitation.;