Appellant's Land Dispute: Sri Nanamamalai Jeer Mutt vs. State

In the legal battle between Sri Nanamamalai Jeer Mutt and the State, the appellant’s land lease for plantation faced complications when the land was proposed to be included in a wildlife sanctuary in 1976. Despite efforts to exclude the land, a writ petition, and a subsequent order by the Collector, the dispute escalated. The appellant filed a civil suit seeking damages for the period between 1976-1993. The case saw a reversal in decisions between the Single Judge and Division Bench, leaving the outcome uncertain.

Facts

Appellant took the land on lease for plantation purposes from Sri Nanamamalai Jeer Mutt
Land was proposed to be included in the wild life sanctuary in 1976
Appellant and Mutt tried to exclude the land from sanctuary but were unsuccessful
Writ petition filed, Single Judge allowed it but Division Bench dismissed it
Collector issued order on 19.11.1993 excluding the land from sanctuary limits
Appellant filed civil suit for damages for the period 1976-1993
Fresh 25-year lease granted to appellant from 01.07.1977 to 30.06.2002
The relief claimed in the present suit was different from the earlier proceeding, so the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
There was no evidence to suggest the appellant was prevented by the State from going inside the forest to collect usufructs, therefore no basis for an action for damages.
The appellant’s claim in the present suit was based on suffering losses due to the Wild Life (Protection) Act and exclusion of the land from acquisition, different from the earlier proceeding.
After the notification and inclusion of the land, the appellant had no further rights after the lease expired, rendering the alleged second lease ineffective.
The civil suit was decreed by the Single Judge but reversed and dismissed by the Division Bench.