State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Chandervir Singh Negi
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Chandervir Singh Negi
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12761277 of 2023
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
Chandervir Singh Negi .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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
2
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 “TikkariLarotBodra Kwar road” on the land of the plaintiff, but no
3
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
Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts
and conduct? OPD
Issue No.6:Whether the suit has not been valued properly
for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
Issue No. 7:Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?
OPD
4
Issue No.8:Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of
necessary parties? OPD
Issue No.9: Relief”.
2.2 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. The
learned Trial Court also held the issue Nos.3, 5 & 7 against
the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned Trial Court dismissed
the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial
Court dismissing the suit came to be confirmed by the First
Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment and order the
High Court has allowed the Second Appeal preferred by the
original plaintiff. 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,
5
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.
2.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
the case the High Court has committed a very serious error in
allowing the Second Appeal and quashing and setting aside the
concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below which
as such were on appreciation of evidence on record.
2.4 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
6
2002, he made any grievance even with respect to nonpayment of the compensation. It is submitted that in the
deposition the plaintiff witnesses including the plaintiff have
specifically admitted that the road in question has been
constructed in the year 1987. It is submitted that for the first
time in the year 2002 the plaintiff in a representation to the
Chief Minister made a grievance with respect to nonpayment
of the compensation. It is submitted that therefore when on
appreciation of evidence on record both the courts below held
that the suit was barred by limitation, the High Court has
committed an error in interfering with the said findings in
exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
2.5 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeals and quashed and set aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the
judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court
dismissing the suit.
7
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court as well as the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
We have also considered the deposition of the plaintiff
witnesses which were elaborately considered by the learned
Trial Court. 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. The plaintiff witnesses have
also admitted that the retaining wall was constructed on the
land of the plaintiff in the year 1987. Even according to the
plaintiff and his witnesses the fruit trees were
damaged/destroyed in the year 1987. Even the cause of action
pleaded in the suit was construction of road in the year 1987.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the
learned Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation
considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when
the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High
8
Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of
facts in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.
3.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that it was the
specific case on behalf of the defendants that the road was
constructed with the help and consent of the plaintiff which is
established and proved by the conduct on the part of the
plaintiff mainly not raising any dispute till 2002.
3.2 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. The High Court has gone on general and broad
principles. However, the High Court has not at all considered
the real facts which are narrated hereinabove. Even the
substantial question of law framed by the High Court also
cannot be said to be a substantial question of law at all. Be
that it may the fact remains that the road in question was
constructed in the year 1987; the trees, if any, were
9
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.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court
confirmed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit is
hereby restored.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
February 24, 2023
Comments
Post a Comment