Civil suits challenging land acquisition are not maintainable as the Land Acquisition Act provides a complete code, and such suits are barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel Shri Girish Kunte for the applicant; learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.Ritu Sharma for non-applicant Nos.1, 3, and 5; learned counsel Shri A.M.Quazi for non-applicant No.2, Advocate Shri Rajkarne h/f learned counsel Shri P.R.Suchak for non-applicant Nos.6a, 6b and 7.

2. Rule.

3. By this civil revision application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 13.7.2022 passed below Exh.34 in RCS No.1129/2019 by learned 13th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint.

4. The relevant necessary facts for disposal of the revision application are as under:

5. The non-applicant Nos.6 to 8 are original plaintiffs who filed RCS No.1129/2019 for declaration and permanent injunction by disputing the acquisition proceedings. As per the plaintiffs, they are legal heirs of late Ganesh Padhye who was owner of field property at mouza Wathoda, admeasuring 22.69 acres bearing khasra Nos.167, 168/1, 168/2, 169/1, and 169/2. In the year 1955, the Madhya Pradesh Government published Notification No.5671-7379–M–MIII- clause (a) sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (the NIT Act) for implementing various schemes of improvement. By award dated 15.2.1962, vide Revenue Case No.27/A-65 of 19549-60 the land was acquired of said Ganesh Padhye for Drainage and Sewage Disposal Scheme. As per the contention of the plaintiffs, said Ganesh Padhye and the plaintiffs were in possession and occupation of the said lands. They had not received any compensation amount and the entire acquisition procedure is totally illegal and without following due process of law. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed a petition before this court bearing Writ Petition No.6023/2016 and by order dated 20.6.2019, liberty was granted to them to file suit. It is further contended that by award dated 15.2.1962 compensation amount was fixed at Rs.2850/- which was allegedly given to said late Ganesh Padhye. In fact, dispute was raised by one Govinda Laxman as to compensation and the dispute was referred to the court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 (the applicant and non-applicant Nos.1 and 3) had never taken possession of the suit property till 2016-2017 and the plaintiffs were in occupation and possession of the suit property along with said Ganesh Padhye. The scheme for which the property was acquired was never implemented for five years and, therefore, they are bound to retain the lands. As per the guidelines issued by the State of Maharashtra, vide Resolution dated 10.10.1973, they are entitled to retain the lands and, therefore, by preferring the said civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed following reliefs:

“a) To declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property bearing Khasra Nos.167, 168/1, 168/2, 169/1, and 169/2 at mouza Wathoda, admeasuring 22.69 acres, tahsil and district Nagpur.

b) To declare that the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit property being the owner of the suit property.

c) To declare that the procedure adopted by defendant Nos.1 to 4 regarding acquiring of suit property is illegally, unjust and improper one and the same is being done without following due process of law.

d) To declare that the plaintiffs or Late Ganesh Padhye had never received the compensation amount as alleged by the defendants.

e) To grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from transferring the said land or dealing with the said land without following due process of law.

f) Any other relief to which this court deems fit and expedient may also kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

6. The said reliefs are strongly opposed by the present applicant who was original defendant No.2 on the ground that the the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and injunction by disp