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

1.1. 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. In a brief outline of the subject matter, it may be noticed that the plaintiff-appellant had allegedly taken certain parcels of landon 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, Nangunerifor plantation and co-related purposes. The case of the plaintiff-appellant has been that by virtue of a notification 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, 1972 and several propositions for award of compensation were actively considered by the authorities concerned, who were also under the mandate of the High Court to finalise the award of compensation at the earliest. The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant has been that on one hand, the land in question was not allowed to be used because of the proposal for its acquisition for wild life sanctuary and on the other hand, no amount of compensation was paid; and then, the defendant-respondent chose toexclude the land in question from the limits of the said wild life sanctuary by way of an order issued on 19.11.1993. The plaintiff-appellant and the Mutt challenged the said order dated 19.11.1993 in the High Court by way of a writ petition. 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 notification in question. 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. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant instituted the civil suit in question against the defendant-respondent, seeking recovery of damages to the tune to Rs. 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. 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. 86,88,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit until realisation. However, in the appeal preferred by the defendant-State, the Division Bench of the High Court found no case 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. Hence, the plaintiff- appellant has preferred this appealThe relevant background and factual matrix2. The relevant background and factual aspects of the matter could be briefly summarised as follows:2.1. 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 commercial crops such as tea, coffee and cardamom over 80 acres of the total available land. 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 30.06.19772.2. By G.O.Ms. No. 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 notify Kalakkadu Reserve Forest in Tirunelveli District as a sanctuary for the protection and development of wild life therein. This allegedly included the aforesaid 197.36 acres of land leased to the appellant2.3. 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. However, the District Collector, by his communication 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 notification for the purpose of wild life sanctuary; and felling of trees may affect the soil conservation and moisture conservation measures in the locality2.4. 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. 8 under the Wild Life Protection (Tamil Nadu) Rules,. The appellant would submit that the land in question was not included in this proclamation dated 14.07.19772.5. The appellant would further submit that when the land in question was not 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. 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 consultation with the District Collector. We shall refer to the question relating to the alleged permission of the said Commissioner hereafter a little later.2.6. Continuing with the factual matrix, it is noticed that on 28.08.1978, the Collector issued another proclamation under Section 21 calling upon the persons claiming any right in or over the land covered thereunder to prefer a written claim within two months under the Rules of 1975. On 31.08.1978, the Collector issued the same proclamation in Tamil language, while also stating that the earlier notification dated 14.07.1977 was cancelled. According to the appellant, the land in question came to be included within the proposed sanctuary only under these notifications issued in the year 19782.7. After the notifications aforesaid, various proceedings and exchange of communications 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. 8 under the Rules of 1975, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,36,866/-. The authorities concerned also exchanged various inter- departmental communications for the purpose of assessment of the amount of compensation. All these proceedings and communications need not be elaborated herein but it may be noticed 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. Thereafter, on 23.03.1990, the Collector addressed a communication to the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration that the compensation together with solatium and interest for the land belonging to the Mutt was estimated at Rs. 72,98,661/-. On 03.12.1990, the said Special Commissioner reduced the total estimated compensation to Rs. 65,06,453/- and requested the Government to pass appropriate order as regards the application of the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894to the present case. Further to this, on 05.03.1991, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests informed the concerned Secretary to the Government about the expected liability of interest in relation to the award to be made in relation to the land in question2.8. While the proceedings aforesaid remained pending but no award 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. 685 of 1991) before the High Court. The present appellant was arrayed as the fourth respondent in that writ petition. The respondent-State stated in its counter 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 not possible to exclude the lands of the petitioner from the limits of the Sanctuary. It will defeat the very purpose of creating the Sanctuary.2.9. 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 not apply to the proceedings in question and that if an illusory compensation was awarded, the writ petitioner shall have the right to challenge the same. 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 compensation2.10. Thereafter, on 09.03.1992, a fresh notice for award inquiry was issued by the Collector under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act of 1894. In response, the Mutt sent a letter claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 92,81,346/-. On the other hand, it appears from the submissions made that on 30.03.1992, the appellant filed the statement claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,09,60,000/- for the market value of coffee, cardamom and tea plantations; Rs.96,00,000/- towards anticipated development of cardamom; and another Rs. 96,400/- towards the cost of the building constructed. The appellant also claimed 30% solatium and 12% p.a. interest from the date of notification until the date of award and 15% p.a. future interest on the total amount of compensation2.11. On 16.04.1992, the award proceedings were completed and a draft award was forwarded by the District Revenue Officer to the Special Commissioner. However, since the respondent did not take further steps for making the award, another writ petition, being W.P. No. 6931 of 1993, was preferred, jointly by the Mutt and the appellant, seeking directions for early making of the award. 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 order2.12. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 11.08.1993, when the matter was being processed by the authorities concerned, 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 cost involved and acquisition of the land in question being not necessary. 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. It appears that on such an application, the High Court, by its order dated 26.10.1993, extended the time for making the award2.13. 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 ofthe Act of 1972, excluded the land in question from the limits of the wild life sanctuary. 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 compensation2.14. The aforesaid order dated 19.11.1993, as issued by the Collector, Tirunelveli, had been the bone of contention in this matter. According to the appellant, the Collector having earlier taken the decision to acquire the land in question, compensation 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. 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 could not meet the exorbitant cost of land acquisition and this acquisition was not required on priority. It is submitted that pursuant to this communication 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 19.11.19932.15. 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. 21721 of 1993. The present appellant also filed a contempt petition (No. 340 of 1994) complaining of disobedience of the orders earlier passed by the High Court. On 13.09.1995, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the said order dated 19.11.1993; and also held the officers concerned guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each of them. However, the order so passed by the learned Single Judge was questioned by the respondent-State by way of an intra- court appeal, being WA No. 1041 of 1995, that was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 18.09.1997 but with several remarks and observations against the respondent-State and while leaving it open for the writ petitioners to approach the civil Court for recovery of damages2.16. The observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 18.09.1997 have formed the basis of the claim made by the appellant in the civil suit leading to this appeal. Having regard to the subject matter of this appeal and the questions involved, pertinent it would be to take note of the observations and findings in the judgment dated 18.09.1997 in the requisite details2.16.1. In its judgment dated 18.09.1997, the Division Bench in the first place observed that when the Collector had already taken the decision to acquire the land in question and to pay compensation, there was no occasion to exercise the power under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 1972. The Division Bench also rejected the argument of the Government Pleader that withdrawal from the proceeding could be sustained in terms of Section 48 of the Act of 1894. Nevertheless, the Division Bench was of the view that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897was applicable and could have been invoked by the Government. However, even in this regard, the Division Bench observed that the entire action of the officers of the Government, right from conceiving the project in question to the late stage backing out, had been thoughtless, casual and perfunctory2.16.2. Even while making such remarks that the impugned actions had been thoughtless and the Government must suffer the consequences, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that the appellant and the Mutt had no right to insist on the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings and to proceed with the project as a sanctuary. After such remarks and observations, the Division Bench acknowledged the power of the Government to withdraw from the notification and to refuse an award under the Act of 1894. However, the Division Bench further proceeded to observe that the Mutt and the appellant had a valid case for claiming damages but in that regard, the damages suffered shall have to be proved in the Court of law. It was, thus, left open for the Mutt and the appellant to take appropriate civil action for quantifying the damages. The Division Bench also left it open for them to seek exclusion of the period during which they had been prosecuting the matter in the High Court.2.16.3. With the aforementioned observations and findings, the Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the decision of the Government to exclude the land in question from the limits of proposed sanctuary was sustainable by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and, while allowing the appeal, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition while leaving it open for the writ petitioners, including the present appellant, to agitate their rights in the appropriate forum. In view of this decision, the contempt proceedings were dropped2.17. In order to complete the chronicle of background, it may also be noticed that the present appellant alone preferred a petition for Special Leave to Appeal before this Court against the said judgment dated 18.09.1997, which was dismissed in limine on 23.02.19982.18. Only after conclusion of the aforesaid litigation with dismissal of the petition for Special Leave to Appeal by this Court on 23.02.1998 that the appellant took up the action in civil Court for recovery of damages2.19. Before dilating on the facts and events relating to the action for recovery of damages, it would be apt to summarise the material facts and features noticed in the preceding paragraphs. Put in a nut-shell, the sum and substance of the matter is that the land in question, said to have been taken by the plaintiff-appellant on lease from the Mutt, was proposed to be included in the sanctuary for wild life by virtue of the notification dated 06.03.1976; and the attempts on the part of the Mutt and the appellant to get the land in question excluded from the sanctuary did not meet with success. Though the matter relating to the award of compensation for acquisition of the subject land was considered by the authorities concerned, 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. The Mutt and the appellant now 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. On 13.09.1995, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition so filed by the Mutt and the appellant. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, in its judgment dated 18.09.1997, did not 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 damagesCivil suit for recovery of damages3. 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. In this regard, the appellant served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01.03.1998 that did not evoke any response. Hence, the appellant instituted the civil suit for recovery of damages on 08.06.1998. 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 could not file the suit for damages. 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 not barred by limitation4. In the written statement, it was contended on behalf of the defendant- respondent that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any damages; that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant; and the defendant did not cause any loss to the plaintiff. It was alleged that no private land was included in the notification under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1972 but Form No. 8 was filed by the appellant claiming compensation and thereby, voluntarily offering the private land for acquisition. 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. It was also contended that in the absence of any express acceptance from the defendant to acquire the land, there was no completed contract 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 no actual acquisition of the land in question4.1. It was also contended by the defendant-respondent that the action of the Government in dropping the proposal to acquire did not affect the status of the land in question; that the claim of the plaintiff that he could not realize anything from the lands was not correct; and that the notification for proposed sanctuary could not have affected the possession and enjoyment of the land by the plaintiff. It was asserted that the subject land was never taken over or controlled by the Forest Department and neither the owner nor the lessee was prevented from enjoyment of the property, who remained in actual possession and enjoyment thereof. It was yet further submitted that even if the subject land was assumed to be under the control of Forest Department, the plaintiff had no right or claim against the defendant for the reason that the plaintiff was only a lessee of the Mutt and there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant-respondent submitted that the land owner had not come forward with any claim since there was no loss caused to them; and the plaintiff, if having any right under the law, was required to seek his remedy only with the lessor and not against the defendant4.2. The defendant-respondent also submitted that even if the land in question was notified, 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 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, 1963 for excluding the period during which the matter was pending in the Court but, the Limitation Act was of no assistance to the plaintiff inasmuch as what was being prosecuted earlier was a challenge to the proposal of acquisition and then for compensation 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. The defendant also raised the objections of want of territorial jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary parties5. On the pleadings of parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?4. Whether the suit land was notified as forming part of the Wildlife Sanctuary?5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so what amount?6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest?7. Whether there is any privity of contract between the parties to claim compensation?6. 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. The defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidenceThe Single Judge decreed the suit7. 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 15.10.20017.1. The learned Single Judge rejected the objections relating to the territorial jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary parties and decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. As regards issue No. 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 contentions of the parties and then, observed that he would disagree with the defendant and had no hesitation in holding that the suit was filed within time. Hence, issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff7.2. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took up issue Nos. 4 and 5 together for determination and, in this regard, referred to the past proceedings commencing from the notification dated 06.03.1976 and various propositions for assessment of the amount of compensation for the proposed acquisition. The learned Judge extensively referred to the rival contentions and to a few documents, including the letter dated 28.05.1987 (Ex. 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, normal plantation was not allowed due to the land acquisition proposals. The learned Judge also referred to the letter dated 23.03.1990 (Ex. P-21) by the Collector, Tirunelveli to the Special Commissioner and to the proceedings dated 03.12.1990 (Ex. P-22) of the Special Commissioner which were carried out for the purpose of assessment of the amount of compensation. Ultimately, the learned Judge accepted the submissions of the plaintiff that loss of earnings was calculated by the officers concerned at the rate of Rs. 2.31 lakhs per annum; and held the plaintiff entitled to this amount for 22 years i.e., a sum of Rs. 50.82 lakhs. The learned Judge though rejected the other claims of the plaintiff but allowed another sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards repairs of factory office. In this manner, the plaintiff-appellant was held entitled to the total sum of Rs. 51.82 lakhs towards damages. On issue No. 6, the learned Judge awarded another sum of Rs. 35.06 lakhs being interest @ 6% p.a. from 06.03.1976 to 18.09.1997 and also held the plaintiff entitled to the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing until realisation. Issue No. 7 was separately decided in favour of the plaintiff in view of the findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5The Division Bench reversed the decree and dismissed the suit8. 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. 193 of 2002, before the Division Bench of the High Court. 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 not accepted and preferred another appeal, being OSA No. 178 of 2003. Both these appeals and interlocutory application therein, being C.M.P. No. 8947 of 2006, were considered and decided together by the Division Bench in its impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.20078.1. The Division Bench of the High Court took note of all the relevant background aspects (as noticed hereinbefore) and the rival contentions and thereafter analysed the matter with reference to the law applicable. In this regard, the Division Bench in the first place extracted in extenso the relevant provisions of the Act of 1972 and examined two core questions: (1) as to whether the appellant could have acquired any right qua the land in question on the basis of the alleged second lease for 25 years after issuance of the notification under Section 18(1) of the Act; and (2) if the appellant at all had any right in the land in question, as to whether the same had been infringed in the manner that it may give any cause to claim damages. The Division Bench also referred to the evidence adduced on record and answered the material questions against the plaintiff-appellant, inter alia, in the following:-21. In the present case, the facts which have been hitherto culled out, indicate that initially there was a declaration of a sanctuary under Section 18(1) of the Act, but the process of acquisition was aborted. Section 20 contemplates that after issuance of such notification under Section 18, ... no right shall be acquired in, on or over the land comprised within the limits of the area specified in such notification, except by succession. As already analysed the provisions indicate that mere issue of notification under Section 18 does not debar the owner of any property in exercising his normal rights and similarly such right can be exercised by his heir. The embargo envisaged under Section 20 is relating to inter vivos transfer of any right in or over the land comprised within the area. Therefore, the plaintiff as an existing lessee for five years and the original owner were as such not debarred from exercising any right. However, it is apparent from the admitted facts that the subsequent lease for 25 years was executed in favour of the plaintiff after issuance of notification under Section 18. Since the plaintiff claims right on the basis of subsequent lease for 25 years, which was admittedly executed by the original owner after notification under Section 18, it is doubtful whether the plaintiff had acquired any right at that time, at least against the State. At any rate, even assuming that the plaintiff had any right as a lessee, there was no statutory embargo debarring the plaintiff from exercising his rights24. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that in respect of the area claimed, the plaintiff and the original owner had ever been dispossessed and prevented from exercising any right, save and except the refusal to grant permission for felling the trees way back in 1976. It is of course true that there are several correspondence on record which indicate that for ascertaining the compensation, the Collector and other authorities were asking for allotment of higher amount for the purpose of finalising the compensation and award, but, there is no material on record to indicate that the award proceedings, so far as the plaintiff and the land owner are concerned, had ever been finalised25. It is of course true that the letter Ex.P-17 dated 28.5.1987 written by the Collector to the Deputy Secretary to the Government recited that the lands of the plaintiff were declared as wild life sanctuary and its development activities had been stopped. However, this communication between two functionaries of the Government should not be construed as denying the original owner or the plaintiff any particular right. There is nothing on record to indicate that because of various steps taken under the Act, the original owner and the plaintiff were prevented from going inside the forest and from collecting the usufructs. If under any misunderstanding relating to scope of the notifications and declarations already issued the plaintiff stopped its activities, it was the plaintiffs own misfortune and it cannot be said that the plaintiff was prevented in any unlawful manner by the State in exercising its lawful right. Merely because various correspondence indicate that the lands were covered under notification issued under Section 18, it cannot be said that the original owner and the plaintiff had been deprived. The only direct document relating to refusal to grant clear fell trees within 10 acres has already been analysed and that factor does not give rise to a cause of action for claiming an astronomical sum as claimed by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was not allowed to fell the trees, it can be well concluded that the trees are still available to be exploited after the area was excluded. However, from the above document alone, which was inter- departmental communication made in the year 1987, it cannot be construed that the original owner and the plaintiff had in fact been prevented from exercising its rights27. Ex.P-14 relates to the prayer for clear felling trees in 10 acres. That cannot form basis for claiming loss at the rate of Rs.2,31,000/- per annum for 22 years. In the various writ petitions and the writ appeals, which had been filed, we do not find any allegation that at any point of time the original owner and the plaintiff had been prevented from exercising their normal rights. We fail to understand as to why the plaintiff should be paid compensation by way of damages unless there is any unlawful act on the part of the defendant. Merely because the plaintiff misunderstood the scope of declaration under Section 18 of the Act or the fact that some enquiries were pending, is not a ground to award damages8.2. The Division Bench of the High Court also examined the purport and effect of the previous judgment dated 18.09.1997 and pointed out that the observations therein did not mean that the rights and liabilities of the parties had been decided and only quantification of the amount of damages was to be made. The Division Bench held, in the following, that the plaintiff- appellant, having failed to plead and prove the specific case of unlawful activity on the part of the State or its officials, was not entitled to recover any amount as damages:-28. It is no doubt true that in the Division Bench decision, while deciding the writ appeal in favour of the Government, certain observations have been made indicating that it is open to the aggrieved party to seek for adequate compensation. Such observations cannot, however, construed to mean that rights and liabilities of the parties had been decided and only quantification is to be made. On the other hand, it was only made clear that even though the Government cannot be forced to acquire the land for the purpose of sanctuary, it was open to the aggrieved party to pursue his remedy obviously in accordance with law. If the person sustains any injury on account of any unlawful activity of the State or any of its official, it was for the plaintiff to clearly allege and prove such unlawful activity in order to claim any compensation by way of damages. Obviously the plaintiff does not have right to receive any compensation as envisaged under the Act. If he has to receive any amount on account of any unlawful activity on the part of the State or its official, a specific case has to be made out. In our considered opinion, in the present case, no such specific case has been pleaded, far less proved8.3. Next, the Division Bench of the High Court referred to the question of limitation and, while referring to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, indicated its prima facie doubt if the period during which the litigation remained pending in the High Court could be excluded but left the matter at that, essentially for the reason that the claim of the plaintiff had been rejected on merits. The Division Bench observed:-29…. Now the plaintiff is claiming damages on account of the fact that the area has been excluded from the sanctuary and thereby it has sustained damages, obviously the cause of action arose on that date i.e., 19.11.1993. The writ petition, which was filed was for quashing such order, was obviously for a different relief. The writ petition was dismissed on merit and not for want of jurisdiction. Prima facie we have doubt as to whether the period during which such litigations remained pending in the High Court can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, since we have negatived the claim of the plaintiff on merits, it is not necessary to delve further into such question8.4. Lastly, the Division Bench also rejected the claim of the plaintiff for interest and set aside the findings of learned Single Judge on issue No. 68.5. In view of its findings on the relevant issues, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

Reasoning:
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.