Jurisdiction of civil court to take cognizance of cases arising under L.A.Act is barred.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.23 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry are the appellants in the above appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is briefly stated herein:

They filed the said suit to set aside the notice dated 12.1.1982 issued by the second defendant expressing intendment to take possession of the suit property on 18.1.1982 and also to set aside the Notification issued by the second respondent under the authority of the first respondent issued under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the award passed by the second respondent is invalid and null and void. It is further contended that a perusal of Sec.4(l) notification shows that it was for the purpose of benefitting a section of the public by way of allotment of house sites to them. The plaintiffs submitted their objections and had also brought to the notice of the authority that they had no other property than the proposed one for acquisition. They also submitted that vast extent of land in Poromboke in the adjacent area which could be well utilised for the alleged purpose of allocation of house sites. However, the authorities again issued notice for their appearance under Sec. 5(a) of the Act. Even though the defendants received the objections from the plaintiffs they did not choose to conduct any enquiry as contemplated under the Act. All of a sudden the authorities issued notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Act informing that they are going to take possession of the property. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the suit as stated above.

3. The defendants filed a written statement wherein it is contended that the second defendant is implementing one of the 20 point programme scheme viz., “Assignment of free house sites to the landless labourers in rural areas” which is a public purpose of utmost importance benefitting a larger number of people who are downtrodden and economically weak. It is also contended that the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been fully observed at all stages. The Land Acquisition Officer has fully followed the provisions, i.e., Secs.4, 5-A, 6 and award proceedings. Necessary notices have been served on all the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. The first plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1. Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked in respect of their case. On behalf of the defendants no one was examined. However, the award dated 15.12.1981 was marked as Ex.B-1. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, after framing necessary issues after holding that the plaintiffs have not made out a case to set aside the notice dated 12.1.1982 issued by the second defendant and after reserving the right to claim higher compensation by the children of the plaintiffs partly decreed the suit as mentioned above. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the court below, the plaintiffs have filed the above appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants after taking me through the case of both the parties, contended that the conclusion arrived at by the court below cannot be sustained and she prayed for interference in this appeal. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In any event he also submitted that the plaintiffs have not made out a case to set aside the impugned notice. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

6. Considering the various provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, it is settled law that the suit is not maintainable. It is not disputed that the defendants have not sent any notice with regard to the acquisition proceedings. In such circumstance, at every stage if the plaintiffs have any objection or grievance it is always open to them to raise their objection before the