The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chandervir Singh Negi

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

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.02.24 16:49:46 IST Reason:

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 “Tikkari­Larot­

Bodra 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 non­

payment 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