What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit for Compensation for Doing or for omitting to do an Act?

Article 72: (Art. 2 of Act of 1908):

The period of limitation for a suit for compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in the territories to which this Act extends is one year and the period of limitation starts to run from the date when the act or omission takes place.

Image Source: static.comicvine.com

Art. 72 applies to a suit for compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force. Compensation meant anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not therefore necessarily be in terms of money.

Compensation is money paid to amend loss or injury. It is making things equivalent; satisfying or making amends, a reward for apprehension of criminals; also that equivalent in money which is paid to the owners or occupiers of land taken or injuriously affected for public purposes and under the Act of Parliament as property rights are not taken away without possession being made.

The expression “in pursuance of an enactment” signifies in substance that the concerned act or omission should be in the exercise or purported exercise of a statutory power and be interpreted as meaning acting in conformity with an enactment.

Art. 72 is restricted to tortious acts of compensation for damages arising out of tort or something in the nature of the tort and for its application there must be a tort or an act or omission amounting to tort. But where the suit is founded not on tort, but on an actionable wrong not amounting to tort the Art. 72 has no application.

The intention of Art. 72 is to meet those cases where the public officer or public authority or a private person does not act injurious to another under power conferred or honestly believed to be conferred by some act of the legislation.

When a public officer is acting bona fides in pursuance of the law and commits a tort, Art. 72 is the proper Article to apply. This Article will not protect a public officer acting mala fide under colour of his office. If a person acts with the full knowledge that he was not entitled to act under a particular statute he cannot take shelter under the Art. 72 by pretending that the act was done with the intention of carrying out the provisions of the statute.

The Art. 72 being evidently intended to allow protection to persons doing acts in pursuance of some enactment in force, it is sufficient for them to show that they were under the honest belief that their act was authorised by some statute.

In State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators, (AIR 1965 SC 70), it has been held that the Art. 72 cannot apply to cases where the act or omission complained of is not alleged to be in pursuance of statutory authority.

In Venkatasubba Rao v. State of A.P., [(1966) 1 SCJ 241], it has been held that a suit for compensation for false imprisonment will not be governed by the Art. 72 but by Art. 73 which specially covers such suits.

In Babulal v. Province of Orissa, (AIR 1954 Ori. 225), it has been held that the Art. 72 has no application to a suit for damages against a police officer for illegal seizure of goods when such seizure was not made or even intended to be made by them by any provision of law.

In East Punjab Provinces v. Modern Cultivators, (AIR 1960 Punj. 66), it has been held that a suit for compensation for failure of the authorities to maintain the canal bank in proper order or failure to repair the canal bank does not fall under Art. 72.

In Manoharlal v. State of M.P, (AIR 1960 MP 120), it has been held that a suit for compensation against the Government for breach of an agreement to pluck and carry fruits from the trees growing in a forest would not attract Art. 72.

In M.P.E.B., Jabalpur v. Kale Khan, (AIR 2004 MP 248), it has been held that a suit for compensation for injury sustained due to fall of electricity pole on the body of the injured was filed against the State Electricity Board and the failure to maintain the electric pole by the State Electricity Board cannot be said to be a violation of arty command issued by the enactment and for such suits Art. 72 would not be applicable.

The limitation under Article 72 starts when the act or omission takes place.