THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. versus CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 24-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 582
582
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
v.
CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1276-1277 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 24, 2023
[M.R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Limitation Act, 1973
– Arts. 58, 72 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question
of law – Bar by limitation – Suit by the respondent for declaration,
mandatory injunction and seeking direction to the appellants to
complete the acquisition proceedings – Respondent’s case that road
was constructed on respondent’s land, no compensation was paid
and non-compliance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act –
Trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation – Upheld by
the first appellate court – Second appeal by the respondent – Allowed
by the High Court – On appeal, held: Road in question on the land
of the respondent was constructed in the year 1987; trees if any
were damaged/removed in the year 1987; the retaining wall was
constructed in the year 1987 and the suit filed in the year 2003 –
Considering the said facts and circumstances when the trial court
held that the suit was barred by limitation and when the same was
upheld by the first appellate court, the High Court ought not to
have interfered with the said findings of facts in exercise of powers
u/s. 100 – High Court did not frame any substantial question of law
on the limitation and/or the suit being barred by limitation – High
Court has gone on general and broad principles – High Court did
not at all consider the real facts, thus, the judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1276-
1277 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2019 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RP No.8 of 2018 and dated 22.08.2016
in RSA No.270 of 2007.
Abhimanyu Jhamba, Ms. Thonpinao Thangal, Samir Ali Khan,
Ms. Hatneimawi, Shivam Prashar, Nikhil Jagotra, Ms. Richa Bharti, Advs.
for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 270 of 2007 by
which the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and
set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court
dismissing the suit and consequently decreeing the suit directing the
appellant herein to initiate the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the
plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint as well as the order dismissing the
review application preferred by the appellant herein, the State of Himachal
Pradesh and others have preferred the present appeals.
2. That the respondent herein - original plaintiff instituted the suit
before the learned Trial Court for declaration, mandatory inunction and
seeking direction to the appellants herein - original defendants to initiate
and complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the
plaintiff and damage to his fruit bearing trees. According to the plaintiff
the appellants herein - original defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 without complying
with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, constructed a road known
as “Tikkari-Larot- Bodra Kwar road” on the land of the plaintiff, but no
compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The fruit bearing plants were
also damaged.
2.1 The appellants herein – original defendants contested the suit
contending inter alia that the suit is barred by law of limitation; that the
plaintiff was working as Mate in the Department and in fact the road
was constructed on his request and as per the consent; the plaintiff
waived off his claim of compensation as the road was constructed with
his consent in the year 1987. The learned Trial Court framed the following
issues:
“Issue no.l :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration, as prayed for? OPP
Issue no.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled compensation as
alleged? OPP
Issue no. 3:- Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Issue
no. 4:- Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. CHANDERVIR
SINGH NEGI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Issue no. 5:- Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts and
conduct? OPD
Issue No.6:-Whether the suit has not been v

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