/2023 INSC 0115/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1276­1277 of 2023
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.           .. Appellants
Versus
Chandervir Singh Negi            .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   09.08.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Himachal   Pradesh   at   Shimla   passed   in   Regular
Second   Appeal   No.270   of   2007   by   which   the   High   Court   has

2
allowed   the   said   appeal   and   has   quashed   and   set   aside   the
judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
dismissing   the   suit   and   consequently   decreeing   the   suit
directing   the   appellant   herein   to   initiate   the   acquisition
proceedings   qua   the   land   of   the   plaintiff   as   mentioned   in   the
plaint   as   well   as   the   order   dismissing   the   review   application
preferred   by   the   appellant   herein,   the   State   of   Himachal
Pradesh and others have preferred the present appeals.
2. That   the   respondent   herein   ­   original   plaintiff   instituted
the   suit   before   the   learned   Trial   Court   for   declaration,
mandatory   inunction   and   seeking   direction   to   the   appellants
herein   ­   original   defendants   to   initiate   and   complete   the
acquisition   proceedings   in   respect   of   the   land   of   the   plaintiff
and   damage   to   his   fruit   bearing   trees.     According   to   the
plaintiff the appellants herein ­ original defendant nos. 1, 2 &
3   without   complying   with   the   provisions   of   the   Land
Acquisition   Act,   constructed   a   road   known   as   “Tikkari­Larot­
Bodra   Kwar   road”   on   the   land   of   the   plaintiff,   but   no

3
compensation   was   paid   to   the   plaintiff.     The   fruit   bearing
plants were also damaged.
2.1 The appellants herein – original defendants contested the
suit   contending   inter   alia   that   the   suit   is   barred   by   law   of
limitation;   that   the   plaintiff   was   working   as   Mate   in   the
Department   and   in   fact   the   road   was   constructed   on   his
request   and   as   per   the   consent;   the   plaintiff   waived   off   his
claim   of   compensation   as   the   road   was   constructed   with   his
consent in the year 1987.   The learned Trial Court framed the
following issues:
“Issue  no.l   :­  Whether   the  plaintiff  is   entitled   for   the  relief
of declaration, as prayed for? OPP 
Issue no.2:­ Whether the plaintiff is entitled compensation
as alleged? OPP 
Issue no. 3:­ Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 
Issue no. 4:­ Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 
Issue   no.   5:­   Whether   the   plaintiff   is   estopped   by   his   acts
and conduct? OPD
Issue No.6:­Whether the suit has not been valued properly
for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 
Issue  No.  7:­Whether  the  plaintiff  has  no  cause  of  action?
OPD 

4
Issue   No.8:­Whether   the   suit   is   bad   for   non­joinder   of
necessary parties? OPD 
Issue No.9:­ Relief”.
2.2 On   appreciation   of   entire   evidence   on   record   and
considering the fact that the road was constructed in the year
1987 and till 2002 no grievance was made by the plaintiff and
as the cause of action arisen in the year 1987, the learned trial
Court held the issue No.4 in favour of the defendants and held
that   the   suit   was   barred   by   limitation   taking   into
consideration   Articles   58   and   72   of   the   Limitation   Act.     The
learned   Trial   Court   also   held   the   issue   Nos.3,   5   &   7   against
the plaintiff.   Consequently, the learned Trial Court dismissed
the suit.  The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial
Court   dismissing   the   suit   came   to   be   confirmed   by   the   First
Appellate   Court.     By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the
High   Court   has   allowed   the   Second   Appeal   preferred   by   the
original   plaintiff.     The   High   Court   framed   the   following
substantial question of law:
"Whether   the   findings   or   judgment   and   decree   passed   by
the   Court   below   are   a   result   of   complete   misreading,

5
misinterpretation   of   the   evidence   and   material   on   record
and against the settled position or law?"
Holding aforesaid question of law in favour of the plaintiff
the High Court without even considering the issue with respect
to   the   limitation   has   allowed   the   Second   Appeal   and   has
quashed   and   set   aside   the   concurrent   findings   recorded   by
both the Courts below and consequently has decreed the suit.
2.3 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   has
vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
the case the High Court has committed a very serious error in
allowing the Second Appeal and quashing and setting aside the
concurrent   findings   recorded   by   both   the   Courts   below   which
as such were on appreciation of evidence on record.
2.4 It   is   submitted   that   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   has   not
properly appreciated the fact that as such the road in question
was   constructed   in   the   year   1987   and   that   too   with   the   help
and   consent   of   the   plaintiff   and   that   at   no   point   of   time   till

6
2002,   he   made   any   grievance   even   with   respect   to   non­
payment   of   the   compensation.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the
deposition   the   plaintiff   witnesses   including   the   plaintiff   have
specifically   admitted   that   the   road   in   question   has   been
constructed in the year 1987.   It is submitted that for the first
time   in   the   year   2002   the   plaintiff   in   a   representation   to   the
Chief   Minister   made   a   grievance   with   respect   to   non­payment
of   the   compensation.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore   when   on
appreciation   of   evidence   on   record   both   the   courts   below   held
that   the   suit   was   barred   by   limitation,   the   High   Court   has
committed   an   error   in   interfering   with   the   said   findings   in
exercise   of   powers   under   Section   100   of   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure.
2.5 Making   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present   appeals   and   quashed   and   set   aside   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the
judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
dismissing the suit.

7
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed   by   the   High   Court   as   well   as   the   findings   recorded   by
the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
We   have   also   considered   the   deposition   of   the   plaintiff
witnesses   which   were   elaborately   considered   by   the   learned
Trial   Court.     From   the   deposition   of   the   plaintiff   witnesses   it
can   be   seen   that   the   plaintiff   and   other   witnesses   specifically
admitted   that  the   land   in   question   on   the   land   of   the   plaintiff
was constructed in the year 1987.  The plaintiff witnesses have
also   admitted   that   the   retaining   wall   was   constructed   on   the
land   of   the   plaintiff   in   the   year   1987.     Even   according   to   the
plaintiff   and   his   witnesses   the   fruit   trees   were
damaged/destroyed in the year 1987.  Even the cause of action
pleaded in the suit was construction of road in the year 1987.
Considering   the   aforesaid   facts   and   circumstances   when   the
learned Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation
considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when
the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High

8
Court   ought   not   to   have   interfered   with   the   said   findings   of
facts in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.
3.1 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   it   was   the
specific   case   on   behalf   of   the   defendants   that   the   road   was
constructed with the help and consent of the plaintiff which is
established   and   proved   by   the   conduct   on   the   part   of   the
plaintiff mainly not raising any dispute till 2002.
3.2 From   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court and the substantial question of law framed it is to
be   noted   that   the   High   Court   has   not   framed   any   substantial
question of law  on the limitation and/or  the  suit being  barred
by limitation.   The High Court has gone on general and broad
principles.   However, the High Court has not at all considered
the   real   facts   which   are   narrated   hereinabove.     Even   the
substantial   question   of   law   framed   by   the   High   Court   also
cannot   be   said   to   be   a   substantial   question   of   law   at   all.     Be
that   it   may   the   fact   remains   that   the   road   in   question   was
constructed   in   the   year   1987;   the   trees,   if   any,   were

9
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 and therefore the
suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of
the   Limitation   Act,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by   the   High   Court   is   unsustainable   and   the   same   deserves   to
be quashed and set aside.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeals   succeed.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.
The   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
confirmed   by   the   First   Appellate   Court   dismissing   the   suit   is
hereby restored.  
Present appeals are accordingly allowed.  No costs. 
…………………………………J.
            (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
    (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi, 
February 24, 2023