M. Venugopal, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff as against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2006 passed in C.S. No. 1514 of 1991 dismissing the suit.

2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff inter alia observing that the acquisition proceedings of the Government cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and resultantly, dismissed the same with costs.

3. The appellant/plaintiff Devasthanam has filed a-suit stating that it is the owner of the lands bearing S.No. 37/7 and 37/65 in Kodambakkam Village, the extent being more than 4 acres and in or about 1965, attempts were made to acquire certain portions of the lands near the appellant/plaintiffs temple and that the appellant/plaintiff preferred W.P. No. 235 of 1965 before this Court and that this Court has directed the second respondent/second defendant not to acquire an extent of 1 1/2 acres of land in and around the temple. During 1983 when some lands belonging to the appellant/plaintiff has sought to be acquired then it caused a notice to the second respondent/second defendant on 28.02.1983 with a request to indicate the exact area proposed to be acquired and marked the same in the sketch and also for the stone so as to find out whether the lands sought to be acquired include the extent of 1.57 acres and the 25 ft. open space from the western compound of wall of the temple for taking the deity of procession and that after long time, the appellant/plaintiff was managed to obtain a rough sketch showing the lands sought to be acquired by the respondents/defendants for road purposes and it was found that the portion sought to be acquired were shown in Green Colour and they were neither shown in Sec.4(1) Notification nor in Section 6 Declaration of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, in S. No. 37/65 an extent of land 2.18 acres belongs to the appellant/plaintiff absolutely the appellant/plaintiff has leased out the portion of the said lands to different tenants and collects the rents. The second respondent/second defendant proceeded on the assumption that the Green Colour Portion belonged to the Corporation. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff has issued a notice on 28.03.1983 enclosing a plan and informing that the Green Colour Portions belong to the plaintiff and if the same were to be acquired the market value should be paid thereof. Again on 06.08.1990 a statutory notice has been issued by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondents/defendants requiring them to deliver possession of the lands acquired without paying the compensation the act of the respondents/defendants in taking the possession of the said lands amount to trespass and they are bound to deliver possession of the same to the appellant/plaintiff. The respondents/defendants are liable to pay damages for their wrongful use and occupation, which is estimated at Rs.5,000/-per year by the appellant/plaintiff and the same is to be paid. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit.

4. In the written statement filed by the second respondent/second defendant, it is averred that there is no difference between S. No. 37/7 and 37/65 and originally the suit lands along with other large extent of lands were sub divided as S. No. 37/7 and further sub divided as 37/65 in Kodambakkam Village and originally classified as Village site. Moreover, as per the orders of the first respondent/ first defendant dated 28.07.1978 the classification of the lands were changed from village site (Government Poramboke) to Ryotwari Manai, and regular pattas were issued to the occupants. Consequent to the orders passed in W.P. No. 235 of 1965 the respondents/defendants had not acquired an extent of 1.5 acres around the temple and two awards were passed after enquiry. It is the further stand of the respondents/defendants that on 08.05.1985, Section 4(1) Notification was is