The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the land acquisition map under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and learned AGP for the State.

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for both parties and the petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. This Revision Application is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Jaysingpur, District: Kolhapur, in R.C.S.No.242 of 2016 thereby overruling the objection raised by the present petitioner, to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit.

5. The petitioner in the present petition is original defendant No.7. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had filed the present suit before the trial Court, for the relief of declaration that the land acquisition map prepared by defendant No.2 Collector, Kolhapur, is void ab-initio and not binding upon the ownership rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property bearing Gat No.311 admeasuring 49 R, out of total area of 2 Hectors situate at village Takawade, Taluka: Shirol. Alongwith the relief of declaration, plaintiffs had also claimed the relief of injunction restraining the defendants, including the present petitioner, from causing obstruction to their possession in the suit land and further from taking possession on the basis of Land Acquisition map prepared by defendant No.2 Collector.

6. In this suit, on his appearance, present petitioner filed application at Exh.7 contending inter alia that by the present suit, plaintiffs are challenging the land acquisition proceeding which were initiated for rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons. In view of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. It was further submitted that in respect of said land, initial notification regarding acquisition of land was published on 5.8.1982. Thereafter final award was passed on 10.7.1986. Compensation was paid to the land owners. In such situation, plaintiffs cannot challenge, the map prepared in land acquisition proceeding, by way of present suit. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being a complete code in itself, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred. Hence, the trial Court should frame preliminary issue under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.

7. Accordingly, trial Court vide its order dated 21.12.2016 framed the preliminary issue. On this issue, the petitioner has not led any evidence. However, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their affidavits in evidence

8. After discussing the provisions and the case laws relating to the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the trial Court was pleased to hold that so far as the relief of declaration that the land acquisition map is void ab-initio, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, is concerned, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiffs will have to approach before concerned authority for redressal of their grievances. However, as regards relief of injunction, it was held by the trial Court that as the dispute raised by the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit property since beginning and entitled to protect their possession; however, as on the basis of wrong four boundaries mentioned in the acquisition map, their possession is sought to be disturbed, the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to determine the issue of possession and therefore, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded.

9. This order of the trial Court is challenged in this Revision Application, by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the relief of injunction is claimed by the plaintiffs is a consequential relief. The main relief claimed by the plaintiffs pertains to the declaration that the map drawn by the Land Acquisition Of