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

PETITIONER: S.P. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.S.R.T.C. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      We do  not find  any illegality  in the order passed by the High Court on January 20,1997 in CRP No. 4097/96.      The admitted  facts are  that the  acquisition  of  the petitioners’ land  has become final. Admittedly notification under section  4(1) of  the land  Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was issued. The petitioners had challenged the notification  in the year 1988. The High Court dismissed the writ  petition on  January 17,1990.  The  special  leave petition filed  by the  petitioners was  dismissed  by  this Court on November 21, 1994.      It is  the case  of  the  petitioner  that  he  made  a representation to  denotify the  part of  the  land  on  the ground that  he was  willing to give 5 out of 11 cents, free of cost.  He claims  that the  secretary  had  examined  the matter and  favourably recommended  for consideration. Since they were  not been  considered, he filed the civil suit for an injunction for restraining them from interfering with his possession.  The   District  Judge   vacated   the   interim injunction granted  by the  trial court  and in the revision the High  Court has  dismissed it.  Thus, this special leave petition.      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  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.

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

    The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.