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

PETITIONER: LAXMI CHAND & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARARIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  523            1996 SCC  (7) 218  JT 1995 (8)   195        1995 SCALE  (6)351

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Notification  under   Section  4   [1]  of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 [for short, "the Act"] acquiring land for construction  of the  school  for  public  purpose,  was published on April 16, 1969. Validity thereof was challenged in C.M.P.  No.60 of  1969. The High Court by its order dated January 23,  1970 dismissed  the writ  petition. Award under Section 11  was made  on September 24, 1974. Validity of the acquisition and  of the  award was  challenged by  filing  a civil suit  on January  3, 1975  for a  declaration that the land could  not be  acquired.  The  acquisition  proceedings having been  once dropped by the Land Acquisition Officer by his proceedings  dated July 13, 1973, he was devoid of power to reopen  the same at the behest of the Gram Panchayat. The Civil Court  on a  preliminary issue  held that the suit was not maintainable.  The learned  single Judge by his judgment and order dated November 23, 1993 upheld the decision of the Civil Court.  The Division  Bench in  L.P.A. No.1 of 1994 by its decision  dated January 1, 1994 dismissed the same. Thus this special leave petition.      The contention  raised by  the learned  counsel for the petitioner is  that the  acquisition proceedings having been dropped  by   the  Land   Acquisition  Officer,  he  had  no jurisdiction or  power to  reopen the  same and  to make the award under  Section 11 of the Act. The award is, therefore, clearly illegal  for want  of jurisdiction.  It would appear that after  the High  Court had  upheld the  validity of the notification under  Section 4  [1] and the declaration under Section 6,  an application  was filed  in the High Court for claiming value  of the  property in  which  the  High  Court determined market  value at  Rs.7,000/- per  acre  and  also other values  of  the  trees  and  buildings  etc.  and  the application was  dismissed. The order dated January 23, 1970 was upheld  by this  Court by  dismissing the  special leave petition. While the enquiry was in progress, it would appear

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

that  the   Gram  Panchayat   had  stated  before  the  Land Acquisition Officer  that it  had no  funds so as to proceed with the award and requested him to drop the proceedings. On that basis,  report was  submitted to the Government and had stopped further action. The Government did not accede to the request. No notification under sub-section [1] of Section 48 of the  Act withdrawing  acquisition of  land, possession of which had  not been  taken, was  published in  the  Gazette. Admittedly, the  Government thereby  had  neither  withdrawn from the  acquisition nor published the same in the Gazette. Therefore, the  mere fact  that the Land Acquisition Officer had stopped  further action to make the award did not divest him of  his power  and jurisdiction to make the award. It is seen that  Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 gives jurisdiction to  the civil  court to  try all  civil  suits, unless barred.  The cognisance of a suit of civil nature may either expressly  or  impliedly  be  barred.  The  procedure contemplated under  the Act is a special procedure envisaged to effectuate  public purpose,  compulsorily  acquiring  the land for  use of  public  purpose.  The  notification  under Section 4  and declaration  under Section  6 of  the Act are required  to   be  published   in  the  manner  contemplated thereunder. The inference gives conclusiveness to the public purpose and  the extent  of the  land mentioned therein. The award  should   be  made   under  Section  11  as  envisaged thereunder. The  dissatisfied claimant  is provided with the remedy of  reference under  Section 18  and a further appeal under Section  54 of  the Act.  If the Government intends to withdraw from  the acquisition  before taking  possession of the land,  procedure contemplated  under Section 48 requires to be  adhered to.  If possession  is taken it stands vested under Section  16 in the State with absolute title free from all encumbrances and the Government has no power to withdraw from acquisition.      It would  thus be  clear that  the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to  take cognisance of the case arising under the Act, by necessary  implication, stood  barred.  The  civil  court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of  the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right  an aggrieved  person  has  is  to  approach  the constitutional courts,  viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under  their plenary  power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrctions on their exercise of extraordinary  power. Barring  thereof, there is no power to the civil court.      It is  true  that  the  Gram  Panchayat  had  initially expressed about  its lack  of funds  but soon  thereafter it came forward  to proceed  with the acquisition and thus lack of funds  with the  Gram Panchayat does not divest the power and jurisdiction  of the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the  enquiry under  Section 11  and to  make the  award thereunder. The  Land  Acquisition  Officer  does  not  lack jurisdiction or  power to make the award. The Civil Court as well as  the High  Court thereby  committed no  error of law warranting our interference.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.