Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Natesan Agencies (Plantations), a partnership firm, against the judgment of the Madras High Court which had reversed the Single Judge's decree awarding damages. The appellant had taken land on lease from Sri Nanamamalai Jeer Mutt in 1971-1972 and later for 25 years from 1977-1978 for plantation purposes. In 1976, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 proposing to include the land in a wild life sanctuary. The appellant alleged that due to this notification, it was prevented from using the land, and despite various proceedings, no compensation was paid. The land was eventually excluded from the sanctuary in 1993. The appellant filed a suit for damages of Rs. 1,31,95,000/-. The Single Judge partly decreed the suit, but the Division Bench dismissed it. The Supreme Court held that the notification under Section 18 did not amount to acquisition or deprivation of property; it only restricted certain activities. No award was made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the land was never acquired. The lessee had no right to compensation for mere loss of use. The Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 1976, and the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not create a substantive right. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Wild Life Law - Notification under Section 18 - Effect on Leasehold Rights - Section 18, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The mere issuance of a notification under Section 18 proposing to declare an area as a sanctuary does not amount to acquisition or deprivation of property; it only restricts certain activities. A lessee cannot claim damages for loss of use unless there is actual acquisition or a statutory bar on use. (Paras 1-10) B) Damages - Claim for Loss of Use - No Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The plaintiff's claim for damages for being deprived of the use of land from 1976 to 1993 fails because no acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was completed; the notification under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 did not divest title or possession. The State's subsequent exclusion of the land from the sanctuary does not create a right to compensation. (Paras 11-20) C) Limitation - Exclusion of Time - Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 - The High Court's observation that the plaintiff could rely on Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period spent in bona fide prosecution of writ proceedings does not create a substantive right to damages; it only addresses limitation. The suit for damages was still barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1976. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, a lessee, is entitled to damages for being deprived of the use of land due to a notification under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, when no acquisition or award was made and the land was later excluded from the sanctuary.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 26.02.2007 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Damages for deprivation of use of land
- Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Section 18 notification
- Right to compensation
- Leasehold rights
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 14 exclusion of time
