The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil suit in a matter relating to land acquisition is not maintainable and filing of such suits are barred under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized the importance of considering only the plaint allegations for rejection of the plaint and preventing the abuse of process of law by entertaining vexatious suits.

1. Civil Revision Petition No.2548 of 2010 was filed to struck off the suit in O.S.No.1645 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.1380 of 2010 was filed challenging the temporary injunction granted in I.A.No.3014 of 2010 in O.S.No.1645 of 2010.

3. The suit in O.S.No.1645 of 2010 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for injunction. The respondent/plaintiff has stated that they purchased the suit property from one A.Khader Mohideen under two registered sale deeds dated 17.2.1983 and their vendor purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 30.8.1972 and their vendor and thereafter they are in possession of the suit property and in July 2007, the revision petitioners disturbed their possession and enjoyment contending that they proposed to acquire the suit property and therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31534 of 2007 and that petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the civil court and thereafter, the revision petitioners kept quiet and suddenly on 26.10.2007, the second revision petitioner issued an advertisement inviting applications from the public for allotment of HIG houses in the suit property and on the same date, the revision petitioners and their officials attempted to dispossess the respondent in an illegal manner and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff filed W.P.No.26067 of 2009 and that petition was dismissed with an observation permitting the respondent to file a suit within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order and it is for the competent civil court to take that suit on file and decide the same including passing of any interim orders and therefore, the present suit was filed for injunction.

4. Mr.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the suit property was the subject matter of acquisition and award was passed on 1.9.1986 after complying with the formalities prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and the owners, as per the revenue records, were served with notice and award was passed and once the notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, the land vests with the Government and civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of those matters and section 4(1) notification was published on 11.6.1975 and notice was served on the then owner A.Khader Mohideen, the vendor of the respondent and thereafter, award was passed and hence, the civil court has no jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgments reported in STATE OF BIHAR v. DHIRENDRA KUMAR ((1995) 4 SCC 229), S.P.SUBRAMANYA SHETTY v. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ((1997) 11 SCC 250), COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. K.S.NARAYAN ((2006) 8 SCC 336) and GANAPATIBAI v. STATE OF M.P. ((2006) 7 SCC 508) in support of his contention. He, therefore, submitted that as the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of lands which are acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, the present suit is not maintainable.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaint has to be considered on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and the court should not take into consideration the stand of the defendants or the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit to decide the merits of the case at the initial stage and it is the specific case of the respondent/plaintiff that they are in possession of the property and that possession was sought to be disturbed and as a matter of fact, in the writ petition in W.P.No.31534 of 2007, this court has granted liberty to the respondent to work out their remedies in the manner known to law and in W.P.No.26067 of 2009 also this court observed that it is always open to the respondent herein to work out his remedy in the manner known to law including filing of the suit and therefore, the suit was filed and at the threshold, it cannot be struck o