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

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DHIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1955            1995 SCC  (4) 229  1995 SCALE  (3)700

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                     O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  dated 7th February, 1986 passed by the Patna High Court at  Patna in  Miscellaneous Appeal  No.16 of  1986.  A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 1/94 (for  short, ‘the  Act’) was  published on February 13, 1957 acquiring  the disputed  land alongwith other lands for public purpose,  namely construction  of the  houses by  the Housing  Board,  known  as  the  Peoples  Cooperative  House Construction Society Ltd., Patna. The declaration under s.6, was published  on March 27, 1957. The possession of the land was taken  on March  22, 1957  and the same was given to the Housing Board  on the same day. It would appear that several encroachments have  been made  in the  land and unauthorised constructions appears to have been made. Steps were taken by the Housing Board to have the encroachers ejected from those lands.  As   sequel  thereof,   it  would  appear  that  the respondent laid  Title Suit  No.329/85 in  the Court  of the Subordinate Judge-I  at Patna  and  filed  an  interlocutory application under  Order 39  Rule 1  of CPC  for  ad-interim injunction. The  Subordinate Judge  in his  order dated 18th October, 1985  found prima  facie case  with triable  issue. Accordingly,  injunction   was   issued,   restraining   the appellants  from   dispossessing  the  respondent  till  the disposal of  the suit without causing any disturbance to the plaintiff’s possession  and enjoyment  of the  suit land  or demolition of  any structure standing thereon. On appeal, it was modified  by the High Court, holding that the status quo as on  October 18,  1985 shall  be maintained.  Thus,  these appeals by special leave.      The question  is whether  a civil  suit is maintainable and whether  ad interim  injunction could  be  issued  where proceedings  under   the  Land  Acquisition  Act  was  taken pursuant to  the notice  issued under  s.9 of  the  Act  and

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

delivered to  the beneficiary. The provisions of the Act are designed to  acquire the  land by  the State  exercising the power of  eminent domain  to serve  the public  purpose. The state is  enjoined to  comply  with  statutory  requirements contained in s.4 and s.6 of the Act by proper publication of notification   and   declaration   within   limitation   and procedural steps  of publication  in papers  and  the  local publications envisaged under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In  publication of  the notifications  and declaration under s.6,  the public  purpose gets crystalised and becomes conclusive. Thereafter,  the State  is entitled to authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the acquisition of  the  land  and  to  make  the  award.  Section  11A  now prescribes limitation  to make the award within 2 years from the last  of date  of publication envisaged under s.6 of the Act.  In   an  appropriate   case,  where  the  Govt.  needs possession of the land urgently, it would exercise the power under s.17(4) of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under s.5-A. Thereon, the State is entitled to issue notice to the parties under  s.9 and  on expiry  of 15  days, the State is entitled to  take immediate possession even before the award could be made. Otherwise, it would take possession after the award under  s.12. Thus,  it could be seen that the Act is a complete code  in  itself  and  is  meant  to  serve  public purpose.      We are,  therefore, inclined  to  think,  as  presently advised, that  by necessary  implication the  power  of  the civil court  to take cognizance of the case under s.9 of CPC stands excluded, and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the  question  of  the  validity  or  legality  of  the notification under  s.4 and declaration under s.6, except by the High  Court in  a proceeding  under Article  226 of  the Constitution.  So,   the   civil   suit   itself   was   not maintainable. When such is the situation, the finding of the trial court  that there  is a  prima facie  triable issue is unsustainable. Moreover,  possession was  already taken  and handed over  to Housing  Board. So,  the order of injunction was without jurisdiction.      The injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by  the   High  Court  are  thus  illegal.  The  appeal  is, accordingly, allowed  and the orders of the courts below are set aside, but, under the circumstances, without costs.