M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) versus STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 20-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS)
v.
STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT
(Civil Appeal No. 5397 of 2010)
AUGUST 20, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Wildlife Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – ss. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 27 and 28 – Recovery of damages – Appellant-partnership
firm had taken land on lease from its owner, the Mutt for purpose
of cultivating commercial crops – The registered lease was for a
period of 5 years i.e. 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1977 – The State issued
notification dated 06.03.1976 for the purpose of wild life sanctuary
which included the land in question – Thereafter, a fresh long-term
lease for a period of 25 years (from 01.07.1977 to 30.06.2002)
was made – The appellant and the Mutt attempted to get the land in
question excluded from the sanctuary, however were unsuccessful
– Thereafter, award of compensation for acquisition was under
consideration, but instead of making award, the collector issued
order dated 19.11.1993, excluding the land in question from the
limits of wild life sanctuary – Aggrieved, the Mutt and the appellant
filed writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the
Single Judge – However, the Division Bench of the High Court did
not approve the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court
and dismissed the writ petition while leaving it open for the appellant
and the Mutt to approach the appropriate forum in their claim for
damages – The Division Bench also acknowledged the power of
the Government to withdraw from the notification and to refuse an
award under the Land Acquisition Act – Thereafter, on 08.06.1998
appellant instituted the civil suit for recovery of damages against
the State on the ground that the appellant was debarred from 1976
to 1993 from utilising the land in question – Single Judge of the
High Court decided in favour of the appellant – However, Division
Bench reversed the decree and dismissed the suit – On appeal, held:
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 508
508
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
After issuance of the notification dated 06.03.1976 and inclusion
of the land in question, there was absolutely no occasion for the
appellant acquiring any further right in the land after expiry of the
term of lease on 30.06.1977 – So, the second lease (i.e. a lease for
25 years) was of no effect – Appellant had acquired no right under
the said second lease and least any right against the State –
Therefore, appellant had no right to claim damages – Further,
appellant was not dispossessed and there was nothing on record to
suggest that appellant was prevented by the State from going inside
the forest and collecting usufructs – Thus, there was no basis for
the appellant to maintain an action for damages.
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.14 – Applicability of – Appellant-
partnership firm had taken land on lease for purpose of cultivation
of commercial crops – A notification dated 06.03.1976 was issued
vide which land in question was acquired for sanctuary – The
appellant and the Mutt attempted to get the land in question excluded
from the sanctuary but were unsuccessful – Thereafter, instead of
awarding compensation, the collector on 19.11.1993 excluded the
land in question from the sanctuary – Aggrieved, appellant filed
writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the Single
Judge – However, Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ
petition while leaving it open for the Mutt and the appellant to
approach the appropriate forum to claim damages – Division Bench
also held that it was open for appellant to seek exclusion of the
period during which they were prosecuting the matter in the High
Court – Appellant filed civil suit for recovery of damages, which
was decided in its favour by the Single Judge of the High Court,
however, Division Bench reversed the decree and dismissed the suit
– On appeal, held: It is settled that for applicability of s.14 of the
limitation Act and exclusion of time spent in earlier proceeding, the
matter-in-issue in both the earlier and the later proceeding must be
the same – In the present case, the appellant in the earlier proceeding
sought exclusion of the land from sanctuary and that State ought to
take the land and pay compensation – Whereas, the claim in the
present suit was founded on the ground that the plaintiff had
suffered loss due to the proceedings under Wild life (Protection)
Act, 1972 and then, due to exclusion

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.