In Brief
The appellant firm, which had taken land on lease for plantation purposes, sought damages after the land was included in a wildlife sanctuary by notification in 1976 and then excluded in 1993. Earlier proceedings sought exclusion of the land and compensation. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the subsequent civil suit for damages was based on different grounds and relief than the earlier proceedings, so Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply. The Court also found the appellant had no legal right to claim damages since the initial lease had expired when the sanctuary notification was issued, and there was no evidence the State prevented land use.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.