1    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  INHERENT JURISDICTION  

REVIEW PETITION (C) D. No. 46265 OF 2019  

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5397 OF 2010  

M/S. NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS)  ……Petitioner(s)  

Vs.  

STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.  

ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPARTMENT   …….Respondent(s)  

O R D E R  

Delay Condoned.  

2. Put in a nutshell, the relevant background aspects of this matter are as  

follows: The appellant firm had taken the land in question on lease for a period  

of 5 years (from 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1977) from its owner, Sri Nanamamalai  

Jeer Mutt, Nanguneri, for plantation and co-related purposes. By the  

notification dated 06.03.1976 issued under the Wild Life (Protection) Act,  

1972, the land in question was proposed to be included in the wild life  

sanctuary. However, a fresh long-term lease for a period of 25 years (from  

01.07.1977 to 30.06.2002) was made in favour of the appellant. The appellant  

and the Mutt attempted to get the land in question excluded from the  

sanctuary but remained unsuccessful. On the other hand, proceedings for  

award of compensation in relation to the land in question remained under  

contemplation. However, instead of making any award, the collector issued

2    

the order dated 19.11.1993, excluding the land in question from the limits of  

wild life sanctuary. Being aggrieved by such exclusion, the Mutt and the  

appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the  

Single Judge but then, the Division Bench of High Court, in its judgment dated  

18.09.1997, did not approve the order so passed by the Single Judge and,  

while acknowledging the power of the Government to withdraw from the  

notification, dismissed the writ petition but left it open for the appellant and the  

Mutt to approach the appropriate forum in relation to their claim for damages.  

Thereafter, on 08.06.1998, the appellant instituted the civil suit for damages  

against the State while alleging that it had been prevented from using the land  

in question from the year 1976 to the year 1993.  

3. The civil suit so filed by the appellant was decreed by the learned Single  

Judge of the High Court but, the Division Bench reversed the decree and  

dismissed the suit by way of its judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007 in  

OSA Nos. 193 of 2002 and 178 of 2003.  

4. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court found that after  

issuance of the notification dated 06.03.1976 and inclusion of the subject land  

therein, there was no occasion for the appellant acquiring any further right in  

the land after expiry of the term of lease on 30.06.1977 and hence, the alleged  

second lease for a period of 25 years was of no effect; and the appellant had  

no right to claim damages from the State. It was also found that there was  

nothing on record to suggest that appellant was prevented by the State from

3    

going inside the forest and collecting usufructs and hence, there was no basis  

for the appellant to maintain an action for damages.  

5. The question of limitation, though left unanswered by the Division  

Bench of High Court, was also examined by this Court and it was found that in  

the earlier proceeding, the appellant sought exclusion of the land from  

sanctuary and asserted that State ought to take the land and pay  

compensation whereas the claim in the present suit was founded on the  

ground that the plaintiff had suffered loss due to the proceedings under Wild  

Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and then, due to exclusion of the land in question  

from acquisition. It was, therefore, found that the relief claimed in the present  

suit was different and matter-in-issue was not the same as that of the earlier  

proceeding and hence, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section  

14 of the Limitation Act.  

6. Having examined the record and the grounds stated, we are unable to  

find any error apparent on the face of the record calling for review of the  

judgment dated 20.08.2019.  

7. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.  

………………………….J.  (UDAY UMESH LALIT)  

……..…………………….J.  (DINESH MAHESHWARI)  

 New Delhi,  Dated: 05th February, 2020