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.
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. 2
On appreciation of entire evidence on record and considering the fact that the road was constructed in the year 1987 and till 2002 no grievance was made by the plaintiff and as the cause of action arisen in the year 1987, the learned trial Court held the issue No.4 in favour of the defendants and held that the suit was barred by limitation taking into consideration Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
The High Court framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings or judgment and decree passed by the Court below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position or law?”
Holding aforesaid question of law in favour of the plaintiff the High Court without even considering the issue with respect to the limitation has allowed the Second Appeal and has quashed and set aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and consequently has decreed the suit. 4 It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the road in question was constructed in the year 1987 and that too with the help and consent of the plaintiff and that at no point of time till 2002, he made any grievance even with respect to non- payment of the compensation.
From the deposition of the plaintiff witnesses it can be seen that the plaintiff and other witnesses specifically admitted that the land in question on the land of the plaintiff was constructed in the year 1987.
2 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the substantial question of law framed it is to be noted that the High Court has not framed any substantial question of law on the limitation and/or the suit being barred by limitation.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
Be that it may the fact remains that the road in question was constructed in the year 1987; the trees, if any, were damaged/removed in the year 1987; the retaining/protection wall was constructed on the land of the plaintiff in the year 1987 and the suit was filed in the year 2003 and therefore 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 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. SHAH)…………………………………J.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI (2023 INSC 158)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001276-001277 / 2023
