The State of Maharashtra v. Haribhau

With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2 sa705.11

Learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellants submits that, the possession of the land belongs to the respondent was taken on 01-01-1986 invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, "said Act"). On 24-04-1994 compensation was paid to the respondent. On 17-04-1997 the respondent issued notice to the appellants under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming for interest. The appellants herein appeared in the suit. On 27-02-1998 the trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the District Judge, Beed on 19-08-2003 and therefore, aggrieved by the same judgment and order, this second appeal is preferred.

Learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellants would submit that, Land Acquisition Act, is a complete Code itself and hence jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred for determining the interest arising out of final award passed by the Special Land Acquisition 3 sa705.11 Officer thereby determining the compensation. Learned A.G.P. further submits that, the provisions of Section 34 of the said Act cannot be invoked by way of filing Regular Civil Suit when the Land Acquisition References are still pending before the competent Court. Therefore, according to learned A.G.P., jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, this second appeal deserves consideration.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that, Civil Court has rendered the findings upon appreciation of evidence and facts, therefore, this Court may not interfere. He further submits that, in case this Court is inclined to allow the second appeal, in that case the respondent may be granted liberty to amend the Land Acquisition Reference pending before the appropriate Forum.

I have given due consideration to the 4 sa705.11 rival submissions. Following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this second appeal. (1) Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the Land Acquisition Act which is self contained Code? (2) Whether the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Subramanya Shetty and others vs. Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and others reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2076, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held, civil suit relating to the acquisition proceeding is not maintainable?

On the above mentioned substantial questions of law, 'Admit'. On admission, the Counsel for the respondent waives service. 5 sa705.11

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Subramanya Shetty (supra) in para-4 held thus : "4. In view of the settled legal position that the notification had become final and the proceedings had attained finality, the Civil Suit was not maintainable. This Court has repeatedly held that a Civil Suit relating to acquisition proceedings is not maintainable and by implication, cognizance under Section 9,CPC, is barred. The Court cannot issue mandatory injunction against the State to denotify the acquisition under Section 48. Therefore, the question of granting an injunction against the authority from proceedings in accordance with the law does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to grant injunction. The Court cannot compel the Government to withdraw the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is for 6 sa705.11 the Government to consider the same on merits and it keeping in mind subservience of public interest. In view of the fact that notification was upheld by this Court and has become final, the Government cannot retract from the steps taken. "

Apart from the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Land Acquisition Act itself is self contained Code and aggrieved person/claimant has remedy to claim interest under the provisions of the said Act. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the appeals filed by the State has taken a view that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Subramanya Shetty and others (supra), suits filed by the claimants therein were not tenable and the claimants therein had a remedy to claim said interest in the pending Land Acquisition References which have been filed for enhancement of compensation. 7 sa705.11

In the aforesaid background, the impugned judgments and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed in Special Civil Suit No.194 of 1997 and passed by the Additional District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1998 are quashed and set aside.