https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458602 After a statutory notification under the Wild Life (Protection) Act barred fresh rights in the notified land, the Supreme Court of India noted that an expired lease could not create an enforceable claim against the State. The record also did not establish unlawful dispossession or any other factual basis to sustain a damages claim, and the refusal to permit clear felling of trees did not by itself justify loss-of-earnings damages. On limitation, the Court held that any cause of action arose when the exclusion order was made, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier writ proceedings did not concern the same matter in issue and were not unable to proceed for a jurisdictional or like defect. The suit was therefore time-barred. 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 After a statutory notification under the Wild Life (Protection) Act barred fresh rights in the notified land, the Supreme Court of India noted that an expired lease could not create an enforceable claim against the State. The record also did not establish unlawful dispossession or any other factual basis to sustain a damages claim, and the refusal to permit clear felling of trees did not by itself justify loss-of-earnings damages. On limitation, the Court held that any cause of action arose when the exclusion order was made, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier writ proceedings did not concern the same matter in issue and were not unable to proceed for a jurisdictional or like defect. The suit was therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458602