2017 Supreme(SC) 1157

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
H. N. Jagannath & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ___________ OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33813 of 2011)
Decided On : 06-12-2017

MAIN POINT
Grating liberty to petitioner to fresh file fresh suit without interfering with the impugned judgment is not permissible.
Courts should not revive and unsettle the settled position.
Superior Court cannot confer jurisdiction on civil court which it does not have.
Repeatedly approaching the courts of law for almost the same relief which was negatived by the courts for three decades can make a litigant liable for contempt of court.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Abuse of process of law and of court – Acquisition attaining finality, land vested in BDA, sites formed and allotted to allottees who made constructions and started residing – Matter attaining legal quietus three decades back – Respondent no. 4 repeatedly filing suits after suits and writ after writs failing each time – All suits dismissed without liberty to file fresh suit – In sixth and instant writ, dismissed by the Writ Court, Division Bench in LPA granting liberty to file suit raising all points available to it – Thus unsettling the settled position – Not permissible. (Para 12)

       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 and 6 r/w section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Power of a civil court u/s 9 to take cognizance of a case stands excluded in case of section 4 and 6 of the Act – Civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 – Division Bench erroneously conferring jurisdiction on civil court to decide validity of acquisition – Per se civil suit is not maintainable for adjudicating the validity or otherwise of the acquisition notifications & proceedings arising therefrom. (Para 13)

       (2013) 3 SCC 66; (1996) 7 SCC 218; (2012) 3 SCC 619; (1995) 4 SCC 229; (2006) 8 SCC 336; (2013) 14 SCC 304 – Relied upon

       (c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Respondent no. 4 repeatedly approaching the courts of law for almost the same relief which was negatived by the courts for three decades – Liable to contempt proceedings. (Para 14)

       Facts of the case:

       The Bangalore Development Authority respondent no. 12 herein, issued notification dated 16.11.1977 under Section 17(1) of BDA Act (almost similar to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) proposing to acquire a vast extent of land in two villages. The preliminary notification included the land belonging to respondent no. 4 located in survey no. 1 of Jaraka Bande Kaval village measuring 25 acres 20 guntas. The preliminary notification was published in the official gazette on 22.12.1977. The final declaration dated 30.08.1979 (gazetted on 20.09.1979) was issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act (almost similar to Section 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act). On 04.06.1985, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in respect of the land measuring 127 acres 21 guntas in survey no. 1 of Jaraka Bande Kaval Village including the land in dispute (the land belonging to respondent no. 4) measuring 25 acres 20 guntas. It was noted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer that respondent no. 4 had filed a petition before him in response to the notice issued under Sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.

       Respondent no. 4 herein had filed a suit for injunction in respect of the disputed property (which was also acquired), O.S. No. 10488 of 1985 against BDA on 28.06.1985. Respondent no. 4 chose to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 10488 of 1985 on 30.01.1989 without seeking any liberty to file afresh suit.

       Respondent no. 4 filed another suit for permanent injunction against BDA for protecting its alleged possession in O.S. No. 3551 of 1989. Order of temporary injunction was granted on 10.07.1989 in favour of respondent no. 4 herein. However, the Trial Court by its order dated 08.03.1990 modified the order of temporary injunction earlier granted and confined the order of injunction only to existing structures. The civil court while modifying the order of temporary injunction has noted that BDA has acquired the property and has taken the possession of the property and that the title vests with BDA.

       Respondent no. 4 filed writ petition no. 17040 of 1991 (after a delay of 10 years from the date of the final declaration) challenging the preliminary and final acquisition notifications. The Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The LPA was also dismissed.

       Respondent no. approached the High Court once again by filing writ petition no. 31007 of 1992 praying for a direction to the State Government to consider its representation for de-notification and for re-conveyance of the land. The High Court by its order dated 09.12.1992 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the government will hear and dispose of the representation of respondent no. 4 herein in accordance with law.

       The State Government by its order dated 15.02.1993 rejected the representation of respondent no. 4.

       Challenging such order of dismissal by the State Government, respondent no. 4 filed writ petition no. 33996 of 1993 which also came to be dismissed on 09.02.1996.

       Respondent no. 4 in the meanwhile had approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition 25719 of 1994 praying for a direction against BDA not to form the road in the land in dispute. The said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 02.07.1996.

       In the meanwhile, the State Government by its order dated 17.11.1994 had permitted respondent no. 4 to run a school situated on the land in question. However, the government by its order dated 29.04.1997 modified its earlier order dated 17.11.1994. Thereafter respondent no. 4 filed yet another writ petition (5th writ petition before the High Court) being writ petition no. 1071 of 1998 to implement the government order dated 17.11.1994 which was dismissed on 05.10.1999.

       Respondent no. 4 filed yet another suit for injunction, i.e. O.S. No. 16147 of 1999 (3rd suit). The said suit came to be dismissed for default.

       Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 once again approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ petition no. 49339 of 2004 (6th Writ Petition) which was dismissed. The Single Judge specifically noted that the possession was taken by BDA, layout was formed, and sites are carved out and distributed to the allottees who were put in possession of the sites. The appellants herein are all allottees of the sites (43 in number). The Single Judge also noticed that the allottees have put up constructions and are residing in their respective houses constructed on the sites allotted and that the contentions taken and reliefs prayed for by respondent no. 4 though they were available for respondent no. 4 to be urged earlier, were not urged by it and therefore, the said prayers are barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.

       The Division Bench by its impugned judgment, though did not interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, granted liberty to respondent no. 4 to work out its remedy in civil court once again observing that in case the suit is filed, the same is to be considered without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

       Thus, the Division Bench though did not interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has virtually ignored all the aforementioned facts, including successive judgments made by the civil court as well as the High Court of Karnataka in six writ petitions, and has virtually kept open all the questions including the question of title and possession, which means that the Civil Court is directed to go into the validity of the acquisition notification, award proceedings and the factum of taking of possession by BDA pursuant to acquisition proceedings.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.