JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1.1 In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendant no.1 assails the correctness of judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court which in turn has reversed the trial court's judgment and decree.

1.2. The following questions have come up for adjudication:-

(1) What is the date when the period of limitation to file civil suit would begin to run if the property is acquired by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(2) If the Civil Court in the civil suit filed by the third party declares acquisition of land by the government illegal whether such judgment shall be binding in the subsequent suit filed by another person

(3) Whether civil court's jurisdiction is excluded to examine the validity of the acquisition of the property by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

1.3. In this case, the State of Punjab while invoking urgency provision under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') issued notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) on 25.01.1978, which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 27.01.1978. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.03.1978 and as per the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, the plaintiff received compensation on 08.01.1979, vide voucher no174, Ex.D8. While appearing as PW3, the plaintiff admits the receipt of compensation. He also does not dispute the receipt of notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act and defendants no.2 to 4, his brothers, also received compensation in the year 1979. He filed the suit for grant of decree of declaration on 01.10.1984, claiming that he along with defendants no.2 to 4 (his brothers) are owners in possession of half share of land measuring 13 bighas and 2 biswas and the acquisition of the land is illegal and void.

1.4. While filing the written statement, the defendant-State of Punjab objected to the maintainability of the suit. It was also asserted that the physical possession was taken on 13.01.1978, hence, the suit land vests in the State of Punjab free from all encumbrances. The suit has been filed after the lapse of period of limitation and now the property vests in the State absolutely.

1.5. The following issues were framed by the trial court:-

"1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

2. Whether notifications dated 25.01.1978 and 27.01.1978 are null and void? OPP

3. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the controversy between the parties? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff along with defendants no. 2 to 4 are owners in possession of suit property? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPP

6. Relief."

1.6. Vide judgment dated 10.09.1987, Additional Senior Sub Judge dismissed the suit which as already noticed, has been reversed by the First Appellate Court on 05.01.1990.

1.7. This appeal was admitted for regular hearing and has now come up for final disposal.

2. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:-

2.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along with the requisitioned trial court record.

2.2 The correctness of the facts is not disputed. The plaintiff relies upon the judgment passed by the High Court in CWP No.1016 of 1998, filed by Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh to challenge the acquisition which was allowed on 24.05.1982. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the LPA Bench on 26.10.1982. The plaintiff also relies upon judgments Ex.P9 and Ex.10, passed by the Civil Court and the First Appellate Court, in a third party suit declaring the acquisition to be illegal.

2.3. The First Appellate Court has reversed the decree passed by the trial court on the following grounds:-

(1) The judgments Ex.P9, Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12, are binding.

(2) The plaintiff is in possession and hence his rights were jeopardized only when he was sought to be dispossessed. There