STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. NATESAN AGENCIES PLANTATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. A. No. 193 of 2002 has been filed by the Defendant state challenging the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge directing payment of Rs. 1,02,21,371. 67 with interest, whereas O. S. A. No. 178 of 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff claiming higher amount.

(2.) THE background facts as culled out from documents are as follows:- Admittedly Sri Vanamamalai Jeer Math of Nanguneri village is the owner of vast extent of forest lands. Out of the said lands, an area of 180. 36 acres of forest land had been leased in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 5 years with effect from 1. 7. 1972 as per Ex. P-2. At that stage, vide g. O. Ms. No. 183, Forest & Fisheries Department dated 6. 3. 1976 (Ex. P-4) the state Government approved the proposal of the Chief Conservator of Forests to notify Kalkakadu Reserve Forest as sanctuary for wild life and accordingly a notification under Section 18 (1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) was issued declaring its intention to constitute the said forest as wildlife sanctuary. On 14. 11. 1976, as per ex. P-5, permission sought for by the plaintiff for clear felling of trees in respect of 10 acres of land was rejected inter alia on the ground that notification under Section 18 of the Act had been issued. On 14. 7. 1977, as per ex. P-6, a proclamation under Section 21 of the Act was issued by the Collector specifying the limits of the sanctuary and requiring any person having any right to file claim in Form No. 8 under the Wild Life Protection (Tamil Nadu)Rules, 1975. On 20. 3. 1978, a registered lease deed Ex. P-3 was executed between the plaintiff and Sri Vanamamalai Jeer Mutt granting a further lease in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 25 years with effect from 1. 7. 1977. On 28. 8. 1978, vide Ex. P-7, a revised proclamation was notified by the Collector under Section 21 of the Act, wherein it was indicated for general information that persons claiming any right in or over the lands or to any forest produce thereof are required to prefer a written claim in the prescribed Form No. 8 specifying the nature and extent of such right with necessary details and the amount and particulars of compensation if any claimed in respect thereof within a period of two months from the date of proclamation. On 31. 8. 1978, a notification in Tamil vide Ex. P-8 was issued cancelling the earlier notification issued on 14. 7. 1977. Pursuant to such notifications, claims had been putforth separately by the original owner as well as the plaintiff. THEreafter, for a long period of time, various formalities to complete the land acquisition were being processed. Proposal had been made by the officials concerned relating to compensation to be paid to different interested persons and ultimately date for enquiry relating to award was fixed. At that stage, W. P. No. 685 of 1991 was filed by the original owner challenging the acquisition proceedings and seeking for stay of the award enquiry proceedings and praying for exclusion of the land belonging to the mutt. A counter affidavit was filed by the State at that stage stating that it was not possible to exclude the said lands from the limits of the sanctuary. Ultimately, such writ petition was dismissed as per Ex. P-25 on 13. 7. 1991. W. A. No. 1071 of 1991 preferred against such order by the land owner was dismissed, but the authorities were directed to expedite the award proceedings. Since the matter remained pending till 1993, W. P. No. 6931 of 1993 was filed by the Mutt as well as by the present plaintiff for issuing a writ of Mandamus for completing the process of acquisition of land. On 11. 8. 1993, vide Ex. P-30, a learned single Judge of this Court passed an order directing the competent authorities to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. However, on 12. 11. 1993, the Government issued letter Ex. P-32 to the Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Acquisition to exclude the land in question from the limits of the wild life sanctuary. THEreafter similar letter was issued by the commissioner to the Collector vide Ex. P-33. Consequently, on 19. 11. 1993, the collector passed an order excluding the lands in question from the purview of the notification. W. P. No. 21721 of 1993 was filed challenging the said order of exclusion issued by the Collector. Such writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge by judgment dated 13. 9. 1995 vide Ex. P-35. However, Writ appeal No. 1041 of 1995 filed against such order was allowed vide order dated 18. 9. 1997 by the Division Bench and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. However, it was observed as follows: - "20. We do not propose to say that the Government is blemish less. On the other hand, the Government had acted thoughtlessly both at the stage of the notification under Section 18 and at that stage of withdrawal from the notification. THE Government must suffer the consequences of their action, both in issuing declaration under Section 18 and in committing inordinate delay in passing the award and ultimately withdrawing from the notification. But the damages suffered by the respondents on account of the government's acts of commission and omission has to be proved in a Court of law. THE respondents have no doubt, a valid case against the Government for their acts of commission and omission. THE question is what is the actual remedy of the respondents. THE maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), is no doubt applicable on the facts of the present case. But, we are only pointing out that the remedy of the respondents is elsewhere. THEy have no right to insist on the Government completing the acquisition proceedings and proceeding with the project as a sanctuary. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we concede the power of the Government to withdraw from the notification an refuse to pass an award under the Land acquisition Act. We keep it open to the respondents to take appropriate civil action for quantifying their damages and for this purpose, it is certainly open to them to rely on the provisions of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which they had been prosecuting the matter in this Court. " Ultimately, it was observed: - "23. . . . Consequently, the prayer sought for in w. P. No. 21721 of 1993 cannot be granted and the writ petition will stand dismissed. THE appeal is allowed and in the above manner, leaving it open to the respondents to agitate their rights in an appropriate forum. " (Emphasis added) SLP. Nos. 3695 and 3696 of 1998 filed against the said decision were dismissed on 23. 2. 1998. THEreafter notice under Section 80 CPC was issued vide Ex. P-38 on 1. 3. 1998 and the suit C. S. No. 561 of 1998 was filed in High Court in its Original Side on 8. 6. 1998 mainly on the allegation that the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from 6. 3. 1976 till 18. 9. 1997 as the defendant had prevented the plaintiff from enjoying the lands and the defendant was liable to pay damages including loss of income suffered by the plaintiff from 6. 3. 1976. In all the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1,31,95,000/- towards loss of earnings. Accordingly prayer was made for paying the aforesaid amounts along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% and costs.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned single Judge framed the following issues:- "1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the suit land was notified as forming part of the Wildlife Sanctuary? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so what amount?