Summary
A landowner in Himachal Pradesh sued in 2003 for a declaration and a direction to the State to initiate acquisition proceedings for land over which the Tikkari-Larot-Bodra Kwar road was built in 1987 without compensation; the trial court dismissed the suit as barred by Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act, the first appellate court concurred, but the High Court in second appeal decreed the suit on a general question of misreading of evidence without considering limitation. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals: the plaintiff's own witnesses admitted that the road, retaining wall and damage to trees dated from 1987 and the first grievance was raised only in 2002, the High Court framed no substantial question on limitation and the question it framed was not a substantial question of law at all, so interference with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC was impermissible.
Issues
- Whether the High Court in second appeal could set aside concurrent findings that a suit for compensation and acquisition of land used for a road built in 1987 was barred by limitation, without framing any substantial question of law on limitation.
Provisions considered
- Articles 58 and 72, Limitation Act, 1963The cause of action pleaded was the construction of the road in 1987, when the retaining wall was built and the fruit trees damaged; a suit filed in 2003 was therefore barred, as both courts below held on appreciation of the evidence. (¶¶ 2.2, 3, 3.2)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court interfered with findings of fact on limitation without framing any substantial question of law on that issue; the question it did frame on misreading of evidence was not a substantial question of law at all. (¶¶ 2.4, 3, 3.2)
Held
- The plaintiff and his witnesses specifically admitted that the road and retaining wall were constructed on the land in 1987 and the trees damaged then, and no grievance was raised until a representation to the Chief Minister in 2002; the defendants' case that the road was built with the plaintiff's help and consent is borne out by his conduct, and the High Court proceeding on general and broad principles ignored these facts. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 3.2)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment dated 22.08.2016 in RSA No. 270 of 2007 and order dated 09.08.2019 in RP No. 8 of 2018 quashed; trial court decree dismissing the suit, as confirmed by the first appellate court, restored.