Case Note & Summary
The review petition arose from a land dispute where the appellant, M/s. Natesan Agencies (Plantations), had taken land on lease from Sri Nanamamalai Jeer Mutt for plantation purposes. The land was proposed to be included in a wildlife sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 via notification dated 06.03.1976. Despite this, a fresh 25-year lease was granted to the appellant from 01.07.1977. The appellant and the Mutt unsuccessfully sought exclusion of the land from the sanctuary. The collector eventually excluded the land on 19.11.1993. The Mutt and appellant filed a writ petition, which was allowed by a Single Judge but reversed by a Division Bench on 18.09.1997, leaving open the claim for damages. On 08.06.1998, the appellant filed a civil suit for damages, alleging prevention from using the land from 1976 to 1993. The suit was decreed by a Single Judge but dismissed by a Division Bench on 26.02.2007. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 20.08.2019, dismissed the appeal, holding that after the 1976 notification, the appellant had no further right in the land after the lease expired on 30.06.1977, and the second lease was of no effect. The Court also found no evidence that the State prevented the appellant from using the land. The limitation issue was examined, and the Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply as the reliefs were different. The review petition sought to challenge this judgment, but the Supreme Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The Supreme Court examined whether the judgment dated 20.08.2019 suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court found no such error and dismissed the review petition. (Paras 1-7) B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Exclusion of Time - The Court held that the relief claimed in the present suit was different from the earlier proceeding, and the matter-in-issue was not the same, hence the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. (Para 5) C) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Notification dated 06.03.1976 - Effect on Lease Rights - The Court found that after issuance of the notification, the appellant acquired no further right in the land after expiry of the lease term on 30.06.1977, and the alleged second lease for 25 years was of no effect. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 20.08.2019 dismissing the civil appeal for damages.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. Delay condoned. No error apparent on the face of the record.
Law Points
- Review petition
- error apparent on face of record
- limitation
- Section 14 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- lease rights
- damages
