The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, despite the award announced by the Collector being conclusive as between the persons interested and the Collector in respect of the amount of compensation.

1. The plaintiffs are in, second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and for correction of the revenue record, was dismissed for the reasons that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

2. A decree for pre-emption of the land measuring 15 Bighas-19 Biswas on payment of Rs. 8198.75 paise, in favour of one Rulia and Banwari, was passed by the learned trial Court on 16-2-1962. It is the case of the plaintiffs that due to mistake, mutation consequent to the decree, was sanctioned in favour of Banwari i.e. predecessor in-interest of the defendants, though Rulia Ram remained in possession of the half share. It is also pointed out that Banwari had purchased another land measuring 14 Bighas-1 Biswa. After consolidation, the suit property came to be allotted in lieu of the aforesaid land in which Rulia had 8/15th share. Taking Advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue record, Banwari suffered a collusive decree on 15-3-1984, in favour of his sons. The said decree also became the subject-matter of the challenge in the present suit. The plaintiffs are the successors in-interest of Rulia.

3. The land in dispute was acquired by the State for a public purpose vide notification dated 23-2-1985 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27-9-1985. It was at that stage, it came to their notice that neither the name of Rulia nor his legal heirs found mentioned in the revenue record, which led to filing of the present suit. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and took a stand that the pre-emption money, in pursuance of the decree for pre-emption was deposited by Banwari alone and that possession was taken over by Banwari alone. The mutation has been, thus, sanctioned rightly in favour of Banwari.

4. On the basis of the documents produced on record, the learned trial Court held that Rulia was owner to the extent of 321 Biswas of the agricultural land on the basis of judgment and decree dated 16-2-1962. After consolidation, out of the entire property measuring 602 Biswas, Rulia has right, title or interest only to the extent of 321/1204 shares. It is also held that mutation No. 2979, Exhibit P-5, does not create absolute right in favour of Banwari. It was also held that the possession of the defendants over the suit property cannot be treated as adverse. However, it was held that the remedy of the plaintiffs is to seek reference under Section 30 of the Act to decide the question of inter-se title and to receive the compensation. Consequently, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In appeal against the said award, the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Both the Courts below have relied upon the judgment reported as AIR 1996 SC 523, Laxmi Chand V/s. Gram Panchayat, Kararia, to hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.

5. The present appeal was admitted for hearing on 20-8-2004, on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.?"

6. Subsequently, the defendants filed the Cross-objections. However, by way of Cross-objections, the defendants have sought to dispute the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in respect of share of Rulia found in the disputed land on the basis of the judgment and decree, Exhibits PA and P-11.

7. It was found that plea of adverse possession is not available to Banwari as the deposit of the entire pre-emption money is including that of share of Rulia and, therefore, Rulia is owner to the extent of 1/2th share. It was also held that the plea of adverse possession would be available to Banwari