IMPORTANT POINT
Civil Court cannot go into question of validity or otherwise of the notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1881—Sections 4 and 6—Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976—Sections 17 and 19—Title suit with prayer for possession and injunction—Plea of defendant-appellant was that land in dispute having been validly acquired and possession having been taken over, suit was not maintainable—Trial Court dismissed suit holding that validity or otherwise of acquisition could not be questioned in civil suit—High Court allowed appeal holding that names of plaintiffs were not at all notified and basic requirements of a valid acquisition of property were not satisfied and thus acquisition proceedings were vitiated—Suit was decreed by High Court—Appeal—Acquisition proceedings were taken under Act 1976—Section 17(5) of the Act mandated that after publication of notification in Official Gazette authority shall serve notice on every person whose name appeared in assessment list of Local Authority and person was entitled to raise objection—Plaintiff purchased property more than one year after notification u/s 17 of the Act had been published—There was no occasion for serving notice upon plaintiffs—High Court erred in holding acquisition proceedings vitiated on that count— Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The provisions of Sections 17 and 19 are somewhat similar to the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act mandates that after the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette the authority shall, during the period of next thirty days, serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the Local Authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment of any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the authority proposes to recover betterment tax. The person on whom the notice is served is entitled to raise objection regarding the proposed acquisition within thirty days. (Para 10)
       It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 17 was published on 26.5.1984 and the notification under Section 19 was published on 23.10.1986. The award was made on 26.5.1988 and thereafter possession was taken over by the Bangalore Development Authority on 22.6.1988. The High Court has observed that the plaintiff K.S. Narayan purchased the property from Doddanna in the year 1964. This is clearly wrong as the specific case of the plaintiff in paragraph 3 of the plaint is that he purchased the property from S. Narayana Gowda on 17.6.1985. It is, therefore, obvious that the plaintiff purchased the property more than one year after the notification under section 17 of the Act had been published. In fact the plaintiffs in all the ten suits purchased the plaint scheduled property some time in the year 1985. The date of purchase of plaint scheduled property by the plaintiffs in the ten suits is mentioned in the first judgment of the High Court remanding the matter to the trial Court. Thus, there was no occasion for serving any notice upon the plaintiffs as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act as their names could not have appeared in the assessment list of the Local Authority or in the land revenue register at the relevant time. Therefore, the whole basis on which the High Court held the acquisition proceedings to be invalid is erroneous and cannot be sustained. (Para 11)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1881—Sections 4 and 6—Civil suit challenging acquisition proceedings—Civil Court cannot go into question of validity or otherwise of notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act.(Para 12)

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.—1. The issue involved in these appeals, by special leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience facts of Civil Appeal 8307 of 2002, which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No. 406 of 2001, shall be stated.

2-3. The respondent K.S. Narayan filed Original Suit No. 5371 of 1989 in the court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing No. 46, situated in Banasawadi village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from S. Narayana Gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985. The erstwhile owners of the property had obtained conversion certificate from the Tehsildar and the property is situated in a lay out which is properly approved by obtaining conversion for non-agricultural use from the competent authority. The plaintiff applied for mutation entries and the same was granted in his favour. The property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as neither notice of acquisition had been received nor any award regarding the said property had been passed. The defendant had no right, title or interest over the property but it was trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the same on the ground of alleged acquisition. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 11.7.1989 calling upon it not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute but no reply had been received. It was pleaded that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 11.7.1989, the date of the notice and also when the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed property.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant Bangalore Development Authority on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property in dispute. S. Narayana Gowda, who is alleged to have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 17.6.1985, had no right, title or interest over the property in dispute and he could not have conveyed any title to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the disputed land had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority after issuing preliminary and final notifications in accordance with Bangalore Development Authority Act and the possession had also been taken over and thereafter it was handed over to the Engineering Section on 22.6.1988 after completion of all formalities. The award for the land acquired had already been made and the compensation amount had been deposited in civil court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was specifically pleaded that it was the defendant Bangalore Development Authority which was in possession of the plaint scheduled property on the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

5. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case before the trial court. The learned XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreed all the ten suits by the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1991. The Bangalore Development Authority, the appellant herein, preferred ten appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial court before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court held that though the plaintiffs had filed the suit claiming to have title and possession over the property in dispute but in fact their possession over the plaint scheduled property on the date of the suit was not established. The plaintiffs had not claimed any relief for delivery

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 944

IMPORTANT POINTCivil Court cannot go into question of validity or otherwise of the notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Civil Court cannot go into question of validity or otherwise of the notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act.