State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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