The Land Acquisition act is a complete Code in itself, and once the land is acquired and possession is taken by the Collector, the jurisdiction of the civil court stands excluded.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition filed under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Beed, in Miscellaneous Civil appeal No. 85/2018.

3. The petitioner/original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 84/2017 seeking declaration of ownership and declaration that gift deed dated 12.08.2016 and sale deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 6, dated 12.08.2016, are null and void and not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for compensation amount of the suit land. The petitioner contended in the suit that she has her cattle shed in the suit property, a well, servant quarter and godown and she has electric connection in her name and she is regularly paying the electricity charges. She further contended that she purchased 10 acres land (which is part of the suit property) from one Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Rehman by registered sale deed dated 01.07.1977 for consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. There are two wells and 28 mango trees in the said land and the petitioner has right to take water from Bindusara canal. In the year 2012, the Government acquired 10 acres land for Beed-ahmednagar-Parali railway. The said land was measured by the petitioner through competent authority in the year 2008. The defendant No. 4- Ulka Madhekar, who happens to be a wife of previous owner Shri. Digambar Madhekar, executed a registered documents of the disputed property in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6, which according to the petitioner is a fraud played on her. On the basis of said documents proceeding of preparing separate award has been initiated by defendants No. 1 yo 3 in the name of defendants No. 5 and 6. She claimed that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 6 and the gift deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 are not genuine documents and the defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant No. 5 and 6 and some revenue authorities are trying to swallow the suit land which belongs to the plaintiff. She claimed that there is no balance land of Madhekar family to the south side and east side of disputed property and therefore, Madhekar's successor have no legal right to execute registered documents in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6. It is further claimed that during acquisition proceedings, the plaintiff came to know that 76R land shown as Pot Kharab in the disputed land, which is area of stream has been included in her 10 acres land, therefore, the suit property shown in para 1 of the plaint was not acquired.

The plaintiff claimed that additional award is likely to be passed in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6 on the basis of said documents and therefore, she filed objection before defendant No. 2, however, no cognizance of the same was taken by defendant No. 2 and therefore, she filed a suit for declaration. In the suit application Exhibit-5 for injunction was filed.

4. The application was resisted by the defendants. They claimed that the suit is not maintainable for want of mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They claimed that total land admeasuring 13 acres belonging to the plaintiff and her son is acquired by the defendant No. 2 and compensation is already paid to them. There is no land remaining in the name of plaintiff and her son. Since 1977 neither the plaintiff nor her husband or her son complained anywhere about the alleged Pot Kharab land. When the plaintiff came to know that the respondents No. 1 to 3 are in need of more land for which heavy compensation is likely to be paid, they have started claiming their ownership of the disputed land. They further submitted that in the joint measurement it is revealed that there is a well, a house and cattle shed owned by defendants No. 4 to 6 in the total land admeasuring 7R which are registered in the