Case: M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) Vs. STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT

In the given circumstances, this Court observed that the petitioner could not be left remediless. In the case of Shring Construction Co. (supra), the arbitration award was initially sought to be challenged by way of a writ petition that was dismissed as being not maintainable on the ground that the award ought to have been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Then, the District Judge dismissed the application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 for being barred by time. This Court found that applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not excluded from the said Act of 1996 and hence, the matter was remitted to the District Judge to examine if the period spent by the appellant in prosecuting remedy before the High Court could be excluded. 21.4.6. The common thread running through all the decisions above referred is that for the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and exclusion of the time spent in earlier proceeding, the matter in issue in both the earlier and the later proceeding must be the same. This is apart from the other requirements that the previous proceeding had been civil proceeding, which were being prosecuted by the plaintiff with due diligence and in a Court which, from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, was unable to entertain the same though the plaintiff had been prosecuting in that Court in good faith. 21.5. In the present case, except the fact that the earlier writ petition in challenge to the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993 was civil proceeding and the plaintiff might have been prosecuting with due diligence, none of the other requirements of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are satisfied. The basic requirement, that the matter in issue in the earlier and the later proceeding ought to be the same; and both the proceedings, earlier and later, ought to relate to the same cause of action and for the same relief, is totally missing. Rather, the matter in issue in the earlier proceeding could well be contradistinguished from the matter in issue in the present suit. In the said earlier proceeding, the plaintiff-appellant joined the Mutt to assert that the respondent-State was not entitled to exclude the land in question from sanctuary; and that the State ought to take the land and ought to pay compensation as proposed by some of its officers. On the other hand, the claim in the present suit is founded on the ground that the plaintiff has suffered loss due to the proceedings under the Act of 1972 and then, due to exclusion of the subject land from acquisition. The relief claimed in the present suit and matter in issue herein cannot be said to be the same as had been in issue in the earlier proceeding i.e., the said writ petition against the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993. Apart from the fact that the earlier proceeding i.e., the said writ petition was for a different relief for quashing the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993, it is also pertinent that the said writ petition was dismissed on merit and not for want of jurisdiction. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is totally ruled out in this case. 21.6. We may also observe that if the said order dated 19.11.1993 had at all given any cause to the appellant to claim damages/compensation, the limitation had begun to run from that date itself and the said proceeding in the writ petition had never arrested such running of limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said order dated 19.11.1993 was quashed by the learned Single Judge on 13.09.1995 and came to be resurrected only when the Division Bench allowed the appeal of the State on 18.09.1997 and therefore, limitation would run from the date of judgment of the Division Bench. This proposition, at the first blush, appeared attractive but cannot be accepted on a closer look at the matter. The filing of writ petition or any order passed therein did not operate in arresting limitation that had begun to run on 19.11.1993, so far the right to sue for damages is concerned. The plaintiff-appellant consciously chose not to claim damages in the wake of the order dated 19.11.1993 and, instead, joined the Mutt to seek the relief that the said order dated 9.11.1993 be quashed and the land be not excluded from sanctuary. Having failed in such an attempt, the appellant could not have maintained the claim for damages, by filing a suit in the year 1998. 21.7. The observations of the Division Bench in the order dated 18.09.1997, suggesting as if the time spent in the said petition could readily be excluded are of no effect because the Division Bench, while dealing with the said writ matter, could not have decided the issue of limitation in the suit in anticipation. Some of the expressions of conclusive nature, as used by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 18.09.1997, were rather unwarranted and in any case, could not have made the question of limitation in relation to the suit for damage fait accompli. We say no more because, read as a whole, the said judgment dated 18.09.1997, cannot be taken to be of final conclusion as regards the applicability of Section 14 to the future action. As noticed, Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the present suit; and, for being otherwise barred by limitation, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 22. We may also observe that so far as the denial of felling the trees by the order dated 16.11.1976 is concerned, if the plaintiff-appellant at all had any right to make a claim for damages on that score, the same ought to have been made within limitation from that date. The relief in that regard could not have been claimed by way of a suit filed more than 20 years later. CONCLUSION

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. We have bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have examined the record of the case with reference to the law applicable. Having examined the matter in its totality, we are undoubtedly of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred by limitation and even otherwise, the plaintiff-appellant had no case on merits to claim damages from the respondent-State. In other words, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the State and has rightly dismissed the baseless suit filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed12. Before dilating on the questions relating to limitation and sustainability of the appellants claim for damages, we may observe that the contentions belatedly put forth on behalf of the defendant-respondent, as regards validity of the alleged second lease in favour of the appellant on the anvil of the Tamil Nadu Act of 1959 (as urged before this Court); and as regards immunity from any action as per Section 60 of the Act of 1972 (as urged before the Division Bench of High Court) cannot be said to be wholly without substance. We would hasten to observe that the case of the appellant is not being rejected on these grounds for the reason that such contentions were not urged at the trial stage but, in the given set of facts and circumstances, we feel rather impelled to make prima facie observations in regards to these aspects12.1. As per the case of the appellant, the second lease deed dated 20.03.1978 in relation to the land in question was executed in its favour by the Mutt for a period of 25 years. The self-explanatory provisions of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Act of 1959 eclare any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease, for a term exceeding 5 years, of any immoveable property belonging to any religious institution to be null and void unless sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. The first proviso to the said Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Act of 1959 also requires that before according sanction, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction shall be published, while inviting objections and suggestions; and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or any other persons having interest shall be considered. In the present case, a vague statement was made by PW-1 that the permission of the department concerned was obtained for the second lease for which, theCollector had made the recommendation but then, neither any documentary proof of any such permission/sanction is adduced nor it is shown that the proposed sanction was duly published and the objections/suggestions were invited and considered. For want of necessary evidence on the validity of second lease deed, prima facie it appears seriously questionable if the plaintiff-appellant had at all acquired any right in the land in question by virtue of the said lease deed, much less a right to claim damages from the State. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are leaving the aspect relating to the effect of Section 34 of Tamil Nadu Act of 1959 at that only, essentially because we are satisfied that the said lease deed was even otherwise impermissible and in any case, even on the basis of this questionable second lease, the plaintiff-appellant has no right to claim damages12.2. Secondly, by virtue of Section 60 of the Act of 1972, no civil suit in relation to any action taken in good faith under the Act of 1972 ismaintainable. Although, this aspect was not pleaded in specific terms on behalf of the defendant-respondent nor any issue in that regard was struck but, prima facie, we have reservations if any action of the present nature could have been maintained against the respondent-State in the face of Section 60 of the Act of 1972. Be that as it may, as observed, we are not finally pronouncing on these aspects and are leaving the same at that13. Taking up the material points for determination in this case, though we are satisfied that the suit in question is liable to be dismissed for the bar of limitation but, for the reason that the learned Single Judge decided this issue in favour of the appellant and the Division Bench left it unanswered because of merit dismissal of the suit, it appears appropriate to discuss the question of limitation later and only after dilating on the merits of the claim for damages by the appellant16. It is beyond the pale of doubt that in the scheme of the Act of 1972, issuance of a notification under Section 18 thereof has the peculiar and striking effect, of arresting the accrual of any right in the land comprised within the limits of the area specified in such notification except by way of testamentary or intestate succession (vide Section 20 ibid.). Even if the appellant was given the land in question on lease for a period of 5 years from 01.07.1972, that period came to an end on 30.06.1977. On this date of completion of the term of the lease, indisputably, the notification under Section 18(1), which was issued on 06.03.1976, was in operation and it had been the specific assertion of the appellant that the subject land was included in the said notification. That being the position, there was absolutely no occasion for the appellant acquiring any further right in the land in question after expiry of the term of his lease on 30.06.1977. For this reason alone, we are clearly of the view that the so called second lease deed, said to have been executed in favour of the appellant on 20.03.1978 was of no effect. In other words, the notification under Section 18(1) having been issued on 06.03.1976 (which included the land in question as per the own assertion of the appellant), no right in the land in question could have been acquired except by succession and hence, acquiring of any right by the appellant in the subject land, said to be covered by the said notification dated 06.03.1976, by way of a lease, was absolutely out of question16.1. In our view, the entire substratum of the case of the appellant is knocked to the ground once it is found that the appellant had acquired no right under the said second lease dated 20.03.1978 and least any right against the State. Noteworthy it is that in all the previous litigations, initially seeking exclusion of land in question from the sanctuary; then seeking compensation for its inclusion; and then questioning its exclusion, the Mutt had been an active participant. In fact, the last petition seeking to question the exclusion was filed jointly by the Mutt and the appellant. However, the Mutt has not joined the claim for damages in this suit. The appellant, we have no doubt, had no right whatsoever to claim damages with reference to the alleged cause of action based on the order of exclusion dated 19.11.1993 for the reason that the alleged second lease was of no effect and the appellant had acquired no right thereunder. We may put it in yet other words that if at all the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993 furnished any right to maintain an action against the State, only and only the Mutt could have maintained such an action but not the appellant. The suit filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed on this count aloneNoteworthy it is that the claim for damages in the present suit is based on the assertion that the respondent- State through its officers caused prejudice and injury by preventing the appellant from entering the subject land and enjoying the usufruct thereof and then, by denying compensation for acquisition by lately excluding the subject land from the sanctuary. Such assertion of the appellant has also taken its strength from some of the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court in its aforesaid judgment dated 18.09.1997, whereby the claim of the Mutt and the appellant against the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993 was rejected. In our view, there is no merit in the claim of the appellant17.2. In our view, the Division Bench has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that there is nothing on record to establish that the original owner and the plaintiff were prevented from going inside the forest and collecting the usufructs. In a comprehension of the facts on record and the law applicable, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-appellant was prevented from exercising its lawful rights in any unlawful manner by the State. Hence, there appears no basis for the appellant to maintain an action for damages18. There had, of course, been one instance where the appellant was denied the permission to fell the trees. That denial was made way back on 16.11.1976 and could not have furnished any cause to the appellant to maintain the claim for damages for the so called loss of earning for 22 years and for claiming other amount as per the prayers made in the plaint. Even as regards the aforesaid denial of permission to fell the trees, it could be presumed that the trees were available at the site when the area was excluded from sanctuary. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff- appellant, if having lawful right over such trees, had suffered any loss by the action of the officers of the Government19. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the appellant had no case for claiming damages against the respondent-State. Hence, it does not appear necessary to deal with various decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant as regards violation of right to property and the claim for damages on that count. However, one aspect of the matter as regards admission on the part of the Collector in the letter dated 28.05.1987 may be examined. There is no dispute on the fundamental principles in Thiru John, Sushil Kumar and Standard Chartered Bank (supra) that an admission is the best evidence against a litigant, unless properly explained. There had not been any evidence on behalf of the defendant-respondent in this case and the aforesaid letter dated 28.05.1987 has not been denied. The question, however, is about the effect of this letter. In our view, even if the said letter, being essentially of inter- departmental correspondence, is taken on its face value, nothing much turns upon it because, as rightly observed by the High Court, there is nothing on record to indicate that the original owner and the appellant were prevented from going inside the subject land and from collecting the usufructs; and it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented in any unlawful manner by the State in exercising its lawful right (if at all the appellant had any such right)So far the observations by the High Court in the said judgment are concerned, it is but apparent that the Division Bench of High Court could not have, and did not, finally pronounce that the time spent in the said writ matter would be excluded under Section 14. The Division Bench only left it open that such a ground may be raised in the claim for compensation. When raised, the ground was obviously required to be examined on its own merits21.4.6. The common thread running through all the decisions above referred is that for the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and exclusion of the time spent in earlier proceeding, the matter in issue in both the earlier and the later proceeding must be the same. This is apart from the other requirements that the previous proceeding had been civil proceeding, which were being prosecuted by the plaintiff with due diligence and in a Court which, from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, was unable to entertain the same though the plaintiff had been prosecuting in that Court in good faith21.5. In the present case, except the fact that the earlier writ petition in challenge to the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993 was civil proceeding and the plaintiff might have been prosecuting with due diligence, none of the other requirements of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are satisfied. The basic requirement, that the matter in issue in the earlier and the later proceeding ought to be the same; and both the proceedings, earlier and later, ought to relate to the same cause of action and for the same relief, is totally missing. Rather, the matter in issue in the earlier proceeding could well be contradistinguished from the matter in issue in the present suit. In the said earlier proceeding, the plaintiff-appellant joined the Mutt to assert that the respondent-State was not entitled to exclude the land in question from sanctuary; and that the State ought to take the land and ought to pay compensation as proposed by some of its officers. On the other hand, the claim in the present suit is founded on the ground that the plaintiff has suffered loss due to the proceedings under the Act of 1972 and then, due to exclusion of the subject land from acquisition. The relief claimed in the present suit and matter in issue herein cannot be said to be the same as had been in issue in the earlier proceeding i.e., the said writ petition against the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993. Apart from the fact that the earlier proceeding i.e., the said writ petition was for a different relief for quashing the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993, it is also pertinent that the said writ petition was dismissed on merit and not for want of jurisdiction. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is totally ruled out in this case21.6. We may also observe that if the said order dated 19.11.1993 had at all given any cause to the appellant to claim damages/compensation, the limitation had begun to run from that date itself and the said proceeding in the writ petition had never arrested such running of limitationThis proposition, at the first blush, appeared attractive but cannot be accepted on a closer look at the matter. The filing of writ petition or any order passed therein did not operate in arresting limitation that had begun to run on 19.11.1993, so far the right to sue for damages is concerned. The plaintiff-appellant consciously chose not to claim damages in the wake of the order dated 19.11.1993 and, instead, joined the Mutt to seek the relief that the said order dated 9.11.1993 be quashed and the land be not excluded from sanctuary. Having failed in such an attempt, the appellant could not have maintained the claim for damages, by filing a suit in the year 199821.7. The observations of the Division Bench in the order dated 18.09.1997, suggesting as if the time spent in the said petition could readily be excluded are of no effect because the Division Bench, while dealing with the said writ matter, could not have decided the issue of limitation in the suit in anticipation. Some of the expressions of conclusive nature, as used by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 18.09.1997, were rather unwarranted and in any case, could not have made the question of limitation in relation to the suit for damage fait accompli. We say no more because, read as a whole, the said judgment dated 18.09.1997, cannot be taken to be of final conclusion as regards the applicability of Section 14 to the future action. As noticed, Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the present suit; and, for being otherwise barred by limitation, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone22. We may also observe that so far as the denial of felling the trees by the order dated 16.11.1976 is concerned, if the plaintiff-appellant at all had any right to make a claim for damages on that score, the same ought to have been made within limitation from that date. The relief in that regard could not have been claimed by way of a suit filed more than 20 years later.