Whether Civil Court can subsequently say notification invalid.

The Second Appeal is by the defendants, namely, the Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the Award passed by the defendants is invalid, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2. It is said that Notification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act was published on 14-11-1973. The respondent herein purchased the property long after Section 4(1) of the Notification, i.e. in the year 1978. He wanted the Notification to be declared invalid for the reason that an erratum notification was issued by the defendants, defrauding the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted a declaration to that effect and also prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they questioned the maintainability of the suit. They also contended that acquisition proceedings were taken properly, and according to them, the plaintiff who is only a subsequent purchaser, is not competent to impeach the Notification.

4. The trial Court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable. On merits, it further held that the acquisition was for a public purpose, and there is no ground made out to quash the Notification. The suit was, therefore, dismissed with costs.

5. When the plaintiff took the matter in Appeal as A.S. No.159 of 1981, on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, the trial Court judgment was reversed. The lower appellate Court held that the suit is maintainable, and that the Government has acted with mala fides, and consequently, a decree was granted as prayed for by the plaintiff. It is against the said decision the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

6. At the time when the Second Appeal was admitted, the following questions of law have been framed :-

"(1) Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act would be hit by vice of mala fides merely because of subsequent reduction of the area, sought to be acquired?

(2). Whether, or hot the proceeding and the decision thereon in W.P No.5814 of 1975 would constitute res judicata, and

(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court has Jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant relief as prayed for?"

7. According to me, the civil suit itself is not maintainable for the following reason.

8. A Division Bench of this Court has held in (1995) 2 Mad LW 166, Nagarajan K.R. v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Works, Madras City, following the decision of the Supreme Court (Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Dy. Collector, L.A. Hyderabad) as follows :-

"The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the rights of a person, who has purchased the property subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Hyderabad. The Court held that when the original owner did not choose to challenge the acquisition in spite of repeated notices, the person, who purchased the property subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot challenge the proceedings in acquisition. The above judgment will govern this case and put an end to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner."

Further, the present suit is also barred. The validity of the Notification was challenged by the plaintiff in Writ Petitions Nos.5814 and 5815 of 1975. The very same contention was raised in those petitions also. This Court, as per Order dated 6-9-1976, came to the conclusion that the Notifications are perfectly valid. The descriptions of properties are accurate and the Government has fully and completely complied with the statutory requirements, and the same has become