Civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding properties under land acquisition, necessitating recourse through designated legal mechanisms.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.8 filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 CPC in O.S. No.2189/2013 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.8 and rejected the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs’ suit was for declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that when a property is under an acquisition proceeding, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another, [(2013) 3 SCC 66] (Brijesh Reddy). The law is well settled that when an acquisition proceeding is initiated, the suit seeking in any form is not maintainable before the Trial Court and is beyond the scope of Section 9 CPC. The Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy has held at paragraph Nos.8, 14, 18 and 19 as under:

“8. The only point for consideration in this appeal is: whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the schedule lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court without examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit?

x x x

14. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting those that are expressly or impliedly barred which reads as under:

“9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.”

From the above provision, it is clear that courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of civil court with regard to a particular matter can be said to be excluded if there is an express provision or by implication it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. An objection as to the exclusion of civil court's jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be taken before the trial court and at the earliest failing which the higher court may refuse to entertain the plea in the absence of proof of prejudice.

x x x

18. It is clear that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose. By necessary implication, the power of the civil court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 CPC stands excluded and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6 and subsequent proceedings except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction being granted on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right available for the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power.

19. No doubt, in the case on hand, the plaintiffs approached the civil court with a prayer only for permanent injunction restraining Defendants