-Report by Sakshi Sneha
The current review petition in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Chandervir Singh Negi has been filed on the grounds that defendants/the State were ordered to begin the acquisition procedures for the land in question within three months of the judgment’s entry and to conclude those proceedings within one year of that date in order to acquire the land. It was argued that the court’s orders are invalid and should be amended, and that the plaintiff, ChanderVir Singh Negi’s action should be dismissed since the plaintiff had previously given the state of Himachal Pradesh the land utilised for the building of the road on June 28, 2016.
FACTS:
Feeling resentful and unsatisfied with the contested judgement and order dated 09.08.2019 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No. 270 of 2007 by which the High Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgement and decree issued by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and subsequently decreeing the suit directing the appellant to file an appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
The original plaintiff filed the lawsuit before the experienced Trial Court in order to obtain a declaration, a mandatory injunction, and a directive instructing the appellants in this case—original defendants—to begin and finish the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plaintiff’s land and any harm to his fruit-bearing trees. Without following the rules of the Land Acquisition Act, the plaintiff claims that the appellants in this case—original defendant nos. 1, 2, and 3—built the “TikkariÂLarot Bodra Kwar road” on his or her property without paying him or her any compensation. The fruit-bearing plants also sustained harm.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
The initial defendants disputed the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that the claim was waived because the plaintiff waived his right to compensation because the road was built with his consent in 1987 while he was working as a Mate in the Department and in accordance with his request. They also claimed that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff is eligible for the declaration relief that has been requested for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is eligible for the compensation claimed?
3. Whether or not the case cannot be maintained?
4. If the lawsuit has run out of time?
5. Whether his actions and behaviour estop the plaintiff from bringing the case?
6. Does the lawsuit need to be correctly appraised for court costs and jurisdictional purposes?7. Whether the plaintiff lacks a legal claim?
8. Relief?
JUDGMENT:
The First Appellate Court upheld the challenged decision and order issued by the High Court as well as the conclusions noted by the knowledgeable Trial Court. According to the plaintiff’s witnesses’ depositions, the retaining wall and the parcel of land in dispute were both built in 1987 on the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff’s witnesses confirmed that fruit trees were damaged or destroyed in 1987, and the suit’s claimed cause of action was the building of the road in that year. In exercising its authority under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court should not have interfered with the factual findings in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.
The High Court’s contested decision and order should be annulled and overturned because they lack merit. In regards to the restriction and/or the litigation being barred by limitation, the High Court has not established any significant legal issues. The reality remains that the plaintiff’s land is where the retaining/protection wall was built in 2003, the road was built in 1987, and any trees were damaged or destroyed in the same year. Because the lawsuit was filed in 2003, it was time-barred under Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Sts1ji