http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3609 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ganpatibai and Anr.                                       

RESPONDENT: State of M.P. and Ors.                                    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6509 of 2002)  

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment  rendered by a Division Bench of the M.P. High Court,  Jabalpur dismissing appellants Letters Patent Appeal by  order dated 7.11.2001.  By the said order, the Division  Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal directed against  order of learned Single Judge dated 23.8.2001 dismissing  writ petition filed by the appellant.

Appellant had challenged notification issued under  Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ’Act’) and the subsequent  award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.  The writ  application was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay  and also on the ground that the award had already been  passed.  The Division Bench concurred with the view  expressed by Learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  High Court should not have considered the writ petition to  be belated. In fact, a suit was filed in the year 1990  immediately after notification was issued under Section 4  and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16.9.1987  and 6.12.1988 respectively.  The suit was held to be not  maintainable by learned Civil Judge, Indore on 16.3.2001.  Thereafter, the writ petition was filed.  

In response, learned counsel for the respondent-  State of M.P. and its functionaries and the Indore  Development  Authority (in short the ’Authority’) supported  the order of learned Single Judge and the appellate  judgment.

A few dates need to be noted for dealing with the rival  contentions.  The Authority passed a resolution on  13.3.1981 to frame scheme under Section 50(1) of M.P.  Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the  ’Adhiniyam’).  The scheme was finally published in terms of  Section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam on 1.5.1984. Certain  additional lands were included in the scheme on 22.6.1984.  Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

16.9.1987, while the declaration under Section 6 of the Act  was issued on 6.12.1988.  The civil suit was filed on  6.9.1990 challenging the scheme, the notification and the  declaration.   

Written statement was filed stating that the suit was  not maintainable.  Certain landowners whose lands were  acquired challenged the notification under Sections 4 and  declaration under Section 6 of the Act and subsequent  award passed.  The High Court quashed the proceedings  and the award; but clarified that the said order would be  applicable only to those who had approached the High  Court and not to others.  By order dated 16.3.2001 learned  Single Judge accepted the primary objections raised  regarding maintainability and jurisdiction of Civil Court and  held that the suit was not maintainable. On 20.7.2001 the  writ petition was filed for quashing the notification,  declaration, scheme as also the award which had been  published on 08.06.2001. Learned Single Judge dismissed  the writ petition holding that there was gross delay in  approaching the Court.  As noted above in the Letters  Patent Appeal filed before the High Court, view of learned  Single Judge was maintained.   

It is not in dispute that right from the beginning the  State Government and the Authority were taking the stand  that the suit was not maintainable.   

In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors. (1995  (4) SCC 229), this Court had observed that Civil Suit was  not maintainable and the remedy to question notification  under Sections 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act  was by filing a writ petition. Even thereafter the appellant,  as noted above, pursued the suit in the Civil Court.  The  stand that five years after the filing of the suit, the decision  was rendered does not in any way help the appellant. Even  after the decision of this Court, the appellant continued to  prosecute the suit till 2001, when the decision of this Court  in 1995 had held that suit was not maintainable.   

That being so, the learned Single Judge and the  Division Bench were justified in holding that the writ  petition was highly belated.   

We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single  Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench to warrant  interference.

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.