J.N. Marshall Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Judgment

1. By petitions, petitioner challenges entire acquisition proceedings commenced respondents provisions Land Acquisition Land Act

1894. It undisputed factual situation contemplated section 12 the Land Acquisition Act has been passed before these petitions were filed. (-2-)

2. When the matter admission, learned counsel petitioner considered judgments Supreme Court India submitted, relying certain judgments that such a petition is tenable even after the award under section 12 is passed.

3. ofofof Relying a judgment Supreme Court StateStateState Bihar Bihar Bihar Vs. Vs. Vs. Dhirendra Dhirendra Dhirendra Kumar Kumar Kumar others others others reported reported reported (1995) (1995) (1995) 4 4 4 S.C.C. S.C.C. S.C.C. 229, 229, 229, contended learned advocate behalf petitioner Supreme Court judgment Land Acquisition Act 1894 a complete Code itself, a challenge proceeding Act tenable observations Supreme Court matter contained 3 after considering the scheme of the Act The Supreme Court has observed thus: "We are, therefore, inclined think, presently advised, necessary implication cognizance section CPC stands excluded, jurisdiction question validity legality notification, 4 declaration u/s.6, except u/s. 9 (-3-) High Court a proceeding Article 226 Constitution." This judgment a 1995 therefore apparently maintainable reliance Vs.Vs.Vs. placed a Division Bench judgment appeal, Leela Leela Leela Nagesh Mandke Nagesh Mandke Nagesh Mandke The The The State State State of Maharashtra of Maharashtra of Maharashtra ors. ors. ors. reported reported reported ors. ors. ors. 206Vol.108(3)Bom.L.R.1841, 206Vol.108(3)Bom.L.R.1841, 206Vol.108(3)Bom.L.R.1841, wherein relying 1995 judgment Supreme Court, civil court does not have jurisdiction to question any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

4. Reliance placed decision Supreme Court Narayan Narayan Narayan Prasad Prasad Prasad Agrawal Agrawal Agrawal Vs. Vs. Vs. State State State M.P.M.P.M.P. others others others reported reported reported (2003) (2003) (2003) II II II S.C.C. S.C.C. S.C.C. 456 456 456 where again a suit was held not to be the proper remedy.

5. Then Supreme Court decision Municipal Municipal Municipal Council Council Council Ahmednagar Ahmednagar Ahmednagar anr.Vs. anr.Vs. anr.Vs. Shah Shah Shah Hyder Hyder Hyder BeigBeigBeig ors. ors. ors. reported reported reported AIR AIR AIR 2000 2000 2000 S.C.Page S.C.Page S.C.Page 671, 671, 671, categorically 17 a petition, passing Land Acquisition Act, is not tenable. The wording of the Supreme Court in this judgment are unequivocal. (-4-) "In event, passed petition challenging acquisition notice against proceeding thereunder. This consistent court."

6. In a mandate Supreme Court India, judgments noticed, sitting Article 226 a contrary expressed by the Supreme Court of India in para 17 of the above judgment.

7. There another reason which we regarding binding nature precedents Supreme Court India. We already observed, wordings 17 AIR 2000 judgment unambiguous, having precedents contemplated Article 141 Constitution India. In circumstances, in mind Supreme Court India Vs.Vs.Vs. Air Air Air India India India Cabin Cabin Cabin Crew Crew Crew Association Association Association Yeshawinee Yeshawinee Yeshawinee Merchant Merchant Merchant others others others reported reported reported 2004 20042004 S.C. S.C. S.C.

187. 187. 187. There Supreme Court heavily criticised High Court taking recourse certain subsequent events sidelining Supreme Court. In present AIR AIR AIR (-5-) contention learned Counsel

Shri Bharucha behalf petitioner certain judgments pertaining maintainability a petition having considered, observations 17 liable down. The Supreme Court clearly considered possibility reading a judgment Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India has observed in the said case as under. "45. It surprising the High Court impugned judgment completely stepped issues firmly settled decision Judges’ Bench Court Nergesh Meerza’s (supra) binding it. By impugned judgment, High effect Court indirectly nullified Court’s decision Nergesh Meerza (supra) relied subsequent event. The subsequent recruits 1997 services Air India, a company formed Air Corporation Act 1994, members merged a common uniform service conditions. Recourse (-6-) subsequent Court binding effect judgment Nergesh Meerza’s (supra). subsequent changed 1997 conditions service The female members crew. How pay, High Court judgment observe differences qualification, promotional avenues conditions service between female obliterated because recruits cadres merged 5-6-1997. We totally disapprove reasoning conclusions High Court impugned judgment differential treatment justified earlier Nergesh Meerza’s (supra) decided, become arbitrary unreasonable becauase passage merger cadres

1997. How High binding decision Court Nergesh Meerza’s (supra), hostesses executive cadre, recruits bound, majority hostesses workmen category, 1997 agreements settlements awards (-7-) reached between employer/Air India.

46. The High Court, we say, against judicial discipline taking a favoaur respondent/association erroneous passge differences service conditions between female cadres obliterated decision Nergesh Meerza’s (supra) High Court making a declaration retirement hostesses flying duties discrimination a violative Arts. 15 16 Constitution."

8. In observations blamed acting against judicial discipline, cannot venture reading a decision delivered Supreme Court India invite similar objections. In opinion, therefore, petititons are not maintainable and are therefore dismissed.

9. After dictated, a request behalf petitioner, continuing (-8-) interim relief granted earlier learned counsel appearing 6th July

2006. The behalf acquiring states possession question factually taken. In circumstances, reason to continue that order. Hence the prayer is rejected.