Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

SUIT FOR COMPENSATION FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND BARRED BY LIMITATION: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a suit filed for the construction of a road on private land without payment of compensation was barred by limitation. The Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit.

The dispute arose when the State of Himachal Pradesh and others constructed a road, known as "Tikkari-Larot-Bodra Kwar road," on the land belonging to Chandervir Singh Negi. The plaintiff claimed that the road was built without complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and without compensating him for his land and the damage caused to his fruit-bearing trees.

The Supreme Court, examining the evidence, noted that the road was constructed in 1987 with the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff had not raised any objections or claimed compensation until 2002, which indicated his consent to the construction. Considering the delay in filing the suit, the Court held that it was barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.

Quoting from the judgment, the Court stated, "The fact remains that the road in question was constructed in the year 1987; the trees, if any, were damaged/removed in the year 1987; the retaining/protection wall was constructed on the land of the plaintiff in the year 1987, and the suit was filed in the year 2003. Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation."

The Court further highlighted that the High Court had erred in not framing a substantial question of law on the issue of limitation and had failed to consider the specific facts of the case. The judgment and order of the High Court were deemed unsustainable, and the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision.

DATE OF DECISION: February 24, 2023

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.    VS Chandervir Singh Negi 

Latest Legal News