https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458602 The SC dismissed the appellant's suit for damages against the state relating to land declared as wildlife sanctuary. The court held that appellant acquired no rights under the second lease dated 20.03.1978 and therefore had no standing to claim damages. Even if rights existed, there was no infringement as appellant was not prevented from accessing the forest or collecting usufructs. The suit was barred by limitation as Section 14 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable - the earlier writ petition challenging exclusion order and the present damages suit involved different causes of action and relief sought. The HC Division Bench correctly dismissed the suit. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:56:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458602 The SC dismissed the appellant's suit for damages against the state relating to land declared as wildlife sanctuary. The court held that appellant acquired no rights under the second lease dated 20.03.1978 and therefore had no standing to claim damages. Even if rights existed, there was no infringement as appellant was not prevented from accessing the forest or collecting usufructs. The suit was barred by limitation as Section 14 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable - the earlier writ petition challenging exclusion order and the present damages suit involved different causes of action and relief sought. The HC Division Bench correctly dismissed the suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458602