Restriction Barred The Action: Sc Restores Trial Court's Decision Rejecting Man's Compensation Claim In Limitation Act Proceedings

CAUSE TITLE:

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors Versus Chandervir Singh Negi     

DATE OF ORDER:  

24-02-2023

JUDGE(S):

M. R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar

PARTIES:

Petitioner:State of Himachal Pradesh

Respondent:Chandervir Singh Negi     

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court has granted the State of Himachal Pradesh's appeals under Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.

The State had challenged the verdict of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had permitted the respondent's appeal and annulled and set aside the Trial Court's decision.

BRIEF FACTS 

• Feeling resentful and unsatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2019 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No.270 of 2007 by which the High Court allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree issued by the learned Trial Court dismissing the lawsuit, the petitioner filed the present action. and as a result of the court's ruling dismissing the appellant's request for a review of the order dismissing the lawsuit and ordering the appellant to begin the acquisition process for the plaintiff's land as specified in the plaint, the State of Himachal Pradesh and others have filed the current appeals.  

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The respondent was employed by the Department as a Mate, therefore the road was built at his request, according to the appellants, who also argued that the lawsuit was time-barred by law. As a result, the respondent forfeited his right to reimbursement because the road was built in 1987 with his approval. The appellants' argument against the respondent was accepted by the Trial Court, but the High Court rejected it.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• In this instance, the respondent filed a lawsuit with the Trial Court asking for a mandatory injunction, a declaration, and instructions to the appellants to begin and finish the acquisition processes of bout his land and damage to his fruit-bearing trees. The respondent's land was used by the appellants to build the "Tikkari-Larot-Bodra Kwar road" without following the Land Acquisition Act's rules. However, the respondent received no compensation, and the fruit-bearing plants were also harmed.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

"The High Court has not framed any substantial question of law on the limitation and/or the suit being barred by limitation," the two-judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar ruled. "The suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside."

The Bench stated that the High Court did not make its decisions based on general, overarching principles and did not give the relevant facts any consideration.

In light of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that "the High Court has allowed the Second Appeal and has quashed and set aside the concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below and has, as a result, decreed the suit without even considering the issue thecerningthe limitation."

The Trial Court determined that the lawsuit was time-barred by consideration of Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act, and the First Appellate Court upheld that decision, according to the Court. The High Court, exercising its authority under Section 100 of the CPC, should not have interfered with the Trial Court's findings of fact.

The High Court's substantial question of law, the Court said, "cannot even be considered to be a considerable question of law at all."

The court reinstated the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the case, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. As a result, the Court upheld the appeals and declared the High Court's decision invalid.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement