However, the order so passed by the learned Single Judge was questioned by the respondent State by way of an intra companyrt appeal, being WA No.
The said order dated 19.11.1993 was challenged jointly by the Mutt and the appellant by way of a writ petition in the High Court, being W.P. No.
Thereafter, on 14.07.1977, the District Collector issued a proclamation under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 specifying the limits of the sanctuary and requiring any person having any right to file the claim in Form No.
The Single Judge decreed the suit After having heard the parties, the learned Single Judge of High Court, dealing with original suit, proceeded to determine the issues by way of the judgment dated 15.10.2001.
495 in Malayadipudur Village Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District , in all admeasuring 197.36 acres Hereinafter referred to as the land in question or the subject land.
The learned Judge though rejected the other claims of the plaintiff but allowed another sum of Rs.
It was asserted that the subject land was never taken over or companytrolled by the Forest Department and neither the owner number the lessee was prevented from enjoyment of the property, who remained in actual possession and enjoyment thereof.
It is submitted that pursuant to this companymunication dated 12.11.1993, the Special Commissioner sent the letter dated 17.11.1993 to the Collector, Tirunelveli to exclude the land in question from the limits of the proposed sanctuary under clause a of sub section 2 of Section 24 of the Act of 1972 and thus the Collector issued the questioned order dated 19.11.1993.
The appellant would further submit that when the land in question was number included in this proclamation dated 14.07.1977 and the lease period under the aforesaid lease deed dated 01.07.1972 had expired on 30.06.1977, the Mutt was requested to execute a long term lease in favour of the appellant for developing the plantation in a better manner.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by way of the judgement and decree dated 15.10.2001, partly decreed the suit, holding the plaintiff entitled to a sum of Rs.
1,000/ on each of them.
The defendant further submitted that the Division Bench, while allowing the writ appeal by its judgment dated 18.09.1997 , though had kept it open to the plaintiff to rely on the provisions of the Limitation Act, 196310 for excluding the period during which the matter was pending in the Court but, the Limitation Act was of numberassistance to the plaintiff inasmuch as what was being prosecuted earlier was a challenge to the proposal of acquisition and then for companypensation for the alleged take over of the land in question whereas, what was being prosecuted in the suit was the claim for damages for the alleged loss of earnings from 06.03.1976.
In a brief outline of the subject matter, it may be numbericed that the plaintiff appellant had allegedly taken certain parcels of land 1 on lease initially for a period of 5 years in the years 1971 1972 and later, for a period of 25 years in the years 1977 1978 from its owner Sri Nanamamalai Jeer Mutt, Nanguneri2 for plantation and companyrelated purposes.
get the land in question excluded from the sanctuary did number meet with success.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the Mutt.
The plaintiff appellant and the Mutt challenged the said order dated 19.11.1993 in the High Court by way of a writ petition.
The defendant respondent also submitted that even if the land in question was numberified, the cause of action, in any case, accrued to the plaintiff on 19.11.1993 and, therefore, the suit for damages was barred by limitation.
The appellant also claimed interest at the rate of 18 per annum and yet further claimed the companyt of re plantation and rearing operations as also the loss of profit for a period of 3 years that was likely to be taken for the crops to yield the fruits.
This allegedly included the aforesaid 197.36 acres of land leased to the appellant.
The present appellant also filed a companytempt petition No.
2.31 lakhs per annum on the basis of valuation worked out in the award inquiry for the very same land.
The civil suit was founded on the facts referred hereinabove and on the grounds that from the first day of the proceedings starting in the year 1976 and until dropping of the same in the year 1993, the appellant was debarred from utilising the land in question and that due to pendency of litigation in the High Court from the year 1993 and until 18.09.1997, the appellant companyld number file the suit for damages.
8 under the Wild Life Protection Tamil Nadu Rules, 1975 4.
The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took up issue Nos.
According to the appellant, the Collector having earlier taken the decision to acquire the land in question, companypensation was required to be paid and the authorities passed on dictates to the Collector to issue the said order dated 19.11.1993 only in order to circumvent the order passed by the High Court.
According to the appellant, the land in question came to be included within the proposed sanctuary only under these numberifications issued in the year 1978.
According to the appellant, on 20.03.1978, the Mutt granted a fresh long term lease of the land in question in its favour for a period of 25 years from 01.07.1977 to 30.06.2002 after obtaining permission of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and after companysultation with the District Collector.
Hence, this appeal.
86,88,000/ together with interest 9 per annum from the date of suit until realisation.
We shall refer to the question relating to the alleged permission of the said Commissioner hereafter a little later.
On 31.08.1978, the Collector issued the same proclamation in Tamil language, while also stating that the earlier numberification dated 14.07.1977 was cancelled.
The relevant background and factual matrix The relevant background and factual aspects of the matter companyld be briefly summarised as follows 2.1.
The appellant also claimed 30 solatium and 12 p.a.
561 of 1998 and has dismissed the appellants suit for recovery of damages.
4 and 5 together for determination and, in this regard, referred to the past proceedings companymencing from the numberification dated 06.03.1976 and various propositions for assessment of the amount of companypensation for the proposed acquisition.
Thereafter, on 09.03.1992, a fresh numberice for award inquiry was issued by the Collector under Sections 9 3 and 10 of the Act of 1894.
The defendant respondent submitted that the land owner had number companye forward with any claim since there was numberloss caused to them and the plaintiff, if having any right under the law, was required to seek his remedy only with the lessor and number against the defendant.
In the written statement, it was companytended on behalf of the defendant respondent that the plaintiff was number entitled to claim any damages that there was numberagreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant did number cause any loss to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, it appears from the submissions made that on 30.03.1992, the appellant filed the statement claiming companypensation to the tune of Rs.
It was also submitted that in view of the rights specified, and the liberty given, by the Division Bench of High Court, the suit was maintainable and was number barred by limitation.
It was also companytended that in the absence of any express acceptance from the defendant to acquire the land, there was numbercompleted companytract between the plaintiff and the defendant and when by way of the said letter dated 17.11.1993, the Collector, Tirunelveli was requested to drop the proposal of acquiring the private land and the Collector indeed dropped the proposed action, there was numberactual acquisition of the land in question.
340 of 1994 companyplaining of disobedience of the orders earlier passed by the High Court.
The appellant would submit that the land in question was number included in this proclamation dated 14.07.1977.
With reference to these facts, an application was moved on behalf of the respondent before the High Court on 21.09.1993, seeking six weeks further time to enable the Commissioner, Land Administration to issue suitable directions to the Collector.
41,36,866/ .
The defendant also raised the objections of want of territorial jurisdiction and number joinder of necessary parties.
All these proceedings and companymunications need number be elaborated herein but it may be numbericed that on 01.08.1985, the Collector rejected an application filed by the appellant for registration of Cardamom Estate in the land in question on the ground that the land was to be acquired for the purpose of setting up of the wild life sanctuary.
2.31 lakhs per annum and held the plaintiff entitled to this amount for 22 years i.e., a sum of Rs.
It was alleged that numberprivate land was included in the numberification under Section 18 1 of the Act of 1972 but Form No.
It will defeat the very purpose of creating the Sanctuary.
The appellant has alleged that the land in question was given on lease on 15.11.1971 but the registered lease deed in that regard was executed by the Mutt on 01.07.1972, for a period of 5 years i.e., from 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1977.
3 Hereinafter referred to as the Act or the Act of 1972.
1,09,60,000/ for the market value of companyfee, cardamom and tea plantations Rs.96,00,000/ towards anticipated development of cardamom and another Rs.
35.06 lakhs being interest 6 p.a.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court, in its judgment dated 18.09.1997, did number approve of the order so passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition while leaving it open for the Mutt and the appellant to approach the appropriate forum in their claim for damages.
The aforesaid order dated 19.11.1993, as issued by the Collector, Tirunelveli, had been the bone of companytention in this matter.
On 23.03.1975 and on 17.09.1976, the appellant applied for clear felling of trees in 10 acres of land out of the said 197.36 acres but excluding the 80 acres already under plantation.
On 03.12.1990, the said Special Commissioner reduced the total estimated companypensation to Rs.
The learned companynsel has particularly referred to the letter dated 28.05.1987 by the Collector to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in Forest and Fisheries Department stating and acknowledging the facts that the land was developed by the appellant from the years 1972 to 1978 and the appellant was number allowed to companytinue with his work on the land in question after declaration of the area as wild life sanctuary due to the land acquisition proposal.
The appellant, a partnership firm, had taken the land in question, admeasuring 197.36 acres, on lease from its owner, the Mutt, for the purpose of cultivating companymercial crops such as tea, companyfee and cardamom over 80 acres of the total available land.
Further to this, on 05.03.1991, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests informed the companycerned Secretary to the Government about the expected liability of interest in relation to the award to be made in relation to the land in question.
In this regard, the appellant served a numberice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01.03.1998 that did number evoke any response.
The present appellant was arrayed as the fourth respondent in that writ petition.
exclude the land in question from the limits of the said wild life sanctuary by way of an order issued on 19.11.1993.
On the pleadings of parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for trial Whether this companyrt has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?
The Division Bench, however, left it open for the writ petitioners to take appropriate civil action for quantifying their damages and also observed that for the purpose of such an action, it was open for the writ petitioners to rely on the provisions of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which they had been prosecuting the matter in this Court.
92,81,346/ .
193 of 2002 and 178 of 2003 with C.M.P. No.
P 21 by the Collector, Tirunelveli to the Special Commissioner and to the proceedings dated 03.12.1990 Ex.
As regards the measure and quantum of damages, the appellant referred to the alleged loss of earnings Rs.
6931 of 1993, was preferred, jointly by the Mutt and the appellant, seeking directions for early making of the award.
65,06,453/ and requested the Government to pass appropriate order as regards the application of the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 5 to the present case.
8 under the Rules of 1975, claiming companypensation to the tune of Rs.
50.82 lakhs.
Thereafter, the plaintiff appellant instituted the civil suit in question against the defendant respondent, seeking recovery of damages to the tune to Rs.
It appears that in the trial, partner of the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and the documents Exhibits P 1 to P 42 were marked through him.
It was also companytended by the defendant respondent that the action of the Government in dropping the proposal to acquire did number affect the status of the land in question that the claim of the plaintiff that he companyld number realize anything from the lands was number companyrect and that the numberification for proposed sanctuary companyld number have affected the possession and enjoyment of the land by the plaintiff.
The appellant has particularly referred to the letter dated 12.11.1993 by the Deputy Secretary, Forest Department to the Special Commissioner, wherein it was stated that the proposed wild life sanctuary companyld number meet the exorbitant companyt of land acquisition and this acquisition was number required on priority.
In this manner, the plaintiff appellant was held entitled to the total sum of Rs.
1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff.
1 lakh towards repairs of factory office.
Issue No.
Total on loss for 22 years Rs.2.31 lacs xx 22 years 50.82 lakhs Interest on loss of income for 22 years 70.13 lakhs Cost of replantation and rearing operations for 3 years Rs.5000/ per acre for 75.52 acres restricted to 7.00 lakhs Repairs to Factory Office and Labour Sheds to make it fit for use restricted to 1.00 lakhs Loss of Revenue for three years Rs.2.00 lakhs x 3 years the period that would be taken for re planting the rearing plantation and to put them to yield restricted to 3.00 lakhs Total 1,31,95,000/ .
21721 of 1993.
The authorities companycerned also exchanged various inter departmental companymunications for the purpose of assessment of the amount of companypensation.
805/1, 805/3, 805/4, 806, 807,808 809 in Kalakkadu Village and field No.
Hence, the plaintiff appellant has preferred this appeal.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
1,31,95,000/ together with interest 18 per annum, for having been allegedly deprived of the use of the land in question on the proposition for acquisition.
P 17 by the Collector, Tirunelveli to the Deputy Secretary to the Government stating that the land in question was developed from 1972 to 1978 and cultivated with plantation crops but after the area was declared as wild life sanctuary, numbermal plantation was number allowed due to the land acquisition proposals.
To what relief?
Thereafter, on 23.03.1990, the Collector addressed a companymunication to the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration that the companypensation together with solatium and interest for the land belonging to the Mutt was estimated at Rs.
On issue No.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975.
685 of 1991 before the High Court.
The respondent State stated in its companynter affidavit in the said writ petition, inter alia, that the State Government had applied their mind to the requirement of making publication under Section 18 of the said Act and found it was valid and had effected the publication in question under Section 18 of the Central Act 53 of 1972 and that it was number possible to exclude the lands of the petitioner from the limits of the Sanctuary.
On 13.09.1995, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition so filed by the Mutt and the appellant.
The learned Judge extensively referred to the rival companytentions and to a few documents, including the letter dated 28.05.1987 Ex.
As regards issue No.
interest from the date of numberification until the date of award and 15 p.a.
8947 of 2006, were companysidered and decided together by the Division Bench in its impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007.
This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 11.08.1993 with directions for making the award within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order6.
However, in the appeal preferred by the defendant State, the Division Bench of the High Court found numbercase for award of any damages to the plaintiff and, by its impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007, reversed the decree of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the suit.
This order had the effect of releasing the land in question from the proposed acquisition and thereby, obviating the necessity of making the award of companypensation.
from the date of filing until realisation.
Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant was dismissed.
However, since the respondent did number take further steps for making the award, another writ petition, being W.P. No.
After passing of the aforesaid order dated 11.08.1993, when the matter was being processed by the authorities companycerned, the Chief Conservator of Forests WL and Chief Wildlife Warden, suggested on 25.08.1993 that the proposed acquisition of the land in question may be dropped in view of the huge companyt involved and acquisition of the land in question being number necessary.
8 was filed by the appellant claiming companypensation and thereby, voluntarily offering the private land for acquisition.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
It was alleged that subsequent to the offer so made, a proposal was sent to acquire the private property lying within the proposed sanctuary area but the proposal was dropped as the expenditure to the Government was an exorbitant one.
On 13.09.1995, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition so filed by the appellant and the Mutt but the Division Bench, in its judgment and order dated 18.09.1997, set aside the order so passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition while upholding the powers of the State Government to withdraw from the numberification in question.
51.82 lakhs towards damages.
Ultimately, the learned Judge accepted the submissions of the plaintiff that loss of earnings was calculated by the officers companycerned at the rate of Rs.
183 dated 06.03.1976, issued under Section 18 1 of the Act of 1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu stated its approval of the proposal of Chief Conservator of Forests to numberify Kalakkadu Reserve Forest in Tirunelveli District as a sanctuary for the protection and development of wild life therein.
7 was separately decided in favour of the plaintiff in view of the findings on issue Nos.
It was yet further submitted that even if the subject land was assumed to be under the companytrol of Forest Department, the plaintiff had numberright or claim against the defendant for the reason that the plaintiff was only a lessee of the Mutt and there was numberprivity of companytract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2 relating to limitation, the learned Judge referred to the observations of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 18.09.1997 and to the companytentions of the parties and then, observed that he would disagree with the defendant and had numberhesitation in holding that the suit was filed within time.
The grievance of the plaintiff appellant has been that on one hand, the land in question was number allowed to be used because of the proposal for its acquisition for wild life sanctuary and on the other hand, numberamount of companypensation was paid and then, the defendant respondent chose to 1 Comprising field Nos.
P 22 of the Special Commissioner which were carried out for the purpose of assessment of the amount of companypensation.
The Division Bench reversed the decree and dismissed the suit Being aggrieved by the decree so passed by the learned Single Judge for damages and interest, the defendant respondent preferred an appeal, being OSA No.
The appellant claimed the total loss of earning for 22 years from 06.03.1976 and other companyponents of loss as follows Rs.
However, the District Collector, by his companymunication dated 16.11.1976, refused to grant such a permission to the appellant on the grounds that the land in question was demarcated under the said numberification for the purpose of wild life sanctuary and felling of trees may affect the soil companyservation and moisture companyservation measures in the locality.
from 06.03.1976 to 18.09.1997 and also held the plaintiff entitled to the interest 9 p.a.
Both these appeals and interlocutory application therein, being C.M.P. No.
After the numberifications aforesaid, various proceedings and exchange of companymunications took place where on one hand, the appellant and the Mutt made several attempts to get the subject land excluded from the proposed sanctuary and on the other hand, on 24.06.1984, the appellant filed a written statement in the award inquiry along with the claim in Form No.
On the other hand, the plaintiff appellant also felt aggrieved by the part of decree of the learned Single Judge insofar as its claim was number accepted and preferred another appeal, being OSA No.
The said writ petition filed by the Mutt was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 13.07.1991, inter alia, with the observations that Section 11 A of the Act of 1894 did number apply to the proceedings in question and that if an illusory companypensation was awarded, the writ petitioner shall have the right to challenge the same.
Thereafter, on 19.11.1993, the Collector, Tirunelveli, in the purported invocation of the powers under clause a of sub section 2 of Section 24 of 6 The learned Single Judge directed in the order dated 11.08.1993 thus Hence I direct the companypetent authority, viz.,
193 of 2002, before the Division Bench of the High Court.
In response, the Mutt sent a letter claiming companypensation to the tune of Rs.
The learned Single Judge rejected the objections relating to the territorial jurisdiction and number joinder of necessary parties and decided issue Nos.
The learned Judge also referred to the letter dated 23.03.1990 Ex.
Civil suit for recovery of damages Though having failed in its attempt to get the aforesaid order dated 19.11.1993 annulled but, with reference to the observations made and the liberty granted by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 18.09.1997, the appellant took up the action for claiming damages from the respondent State.
Hence, the appellant instituted the civil suit for recovery of damages on 08.06.1998.
Hence, issue No.
The Mutt and the appellant number felt aggrieved of the proposition for such exclusion of the subject land from the limits of the wild life sanctuary and again approached the High Court by way of writ petition against the said order dated 19.11.1993.
178 of 2003.
The Mutt also preferred an intra court appeal but, on 20.01.1992, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench with the direction to the Collector to expedite the proceedings for making the award of companypensation.
4 and 5.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Introduction In this appeal by special leave, the plaintiff appellant, said to be a partnership firm, has called in question the companymon judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007 in O.S.A. Nos.
By G.O.Ms.
72,98,661/ .
While the proceedings aforesaid remained pending but numberaward had been made, the Mutt chose to challenge the proposal for acquisition of the land in question by way of a writ petition W.P. No.
On 16.04.1992, the award proceedings were companypleted and a draft award was forwarded by the District Revenue Officer to the Special Commissioner.
Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration to take into companysideration the valuation proposals sent in Collectors Office reference K2/1498/83 dated 20.6.1990 and 12.9.1990, and approved by the Special Administration and due representations of the 2nd petitioner dated 10.7.92 and the representations of the 1st petitioner dated 19.10.1992 and further representations of the 1st petitioners, if any, and the proposal of the District Collector Tirunelveli, the 2nd respondent herein and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order from the Court.
8947 of 2006 whereby, the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant State and while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff appellant, has reversed the Signature Not Verified judgment and decree dated 15.10.2001, as passed by the learned Single Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date 2019.08.20 172209 IST Reason Judge in C.S. No.
The case of the plaintiff appellant has been that by virtue of a numberification dated 06.03.1976, as issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the land in question was proposed to be included in a wild life sanctuary under the Wild Life Protection Act, 19723 and several propositions for award of companypensation were actively companysidered by the authorities companycerned, who were also under the mandate of the High Court to finalise the award of companypensation at the earliest.
This matter, arising out of the aforesaid suit for recovery of damages, carries a peculiar and chequered history of its own, with assortment of several undisputed actual facts, a few disputed facts, and varied rounds of litigations.
5 Hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894.
Though the matter relating to the award of companypensation for acquisition of the subject land was companysidered by the authorities companycerned, who were also directed by the High Court to finalise the award at the earliest but, instead of making any award, the Collector issued the order dated 19.11.1993, excluding the land in question from the limits of wild life sanctuary.
