By the Court—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the possession notice (Annex. 16) issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act 1894) in respect of the plots referred to therein measuring an area of five bighas 10 biswansis.

2. The main thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel was that the said land was not acquired and left out for the Yojana earlier and as such the respondents cannot take possession of the land which has not been acquired nor had been subjected to the acquisition proceedings.

3. Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2004 which was dismissed on 20.11.2004 leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. A copy of the said judgment has been produced before the Court.

4. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 1085 of 2004 and it is alleged that some injunction is operating in favour of the petitioner but forcible possession has been taken by the respondents on 25.11.2004, i.e. just after five days of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition.

5. Shri Chaudhary relied upon a large number of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court for the proposition that action of the respondents is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

6. Having perused the records of the writ petition and having considered the submissions advanced, it is clear that the present writ petition has been filed for the relief for which the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and with regard to which the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2004 has been dismissed on 20.11.2004. Whatever grievances the petitioner has, is already engaging the attention of the Civil Court and since the claim of the petitioner is with regard to the identity of the land which the petitioner contends, was not subject matter of acquisition, therefore, it is only the Civil Court which can consider the claim of the petitioner.

7. We do not find any force in the contention raised by Shri Chaudhary that the Civil Suit is not maintainable in respect of such matters, as the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Dhirender Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 1955; and Laxmichand & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Kararia, AIR 1996 SC 523, has consistently held that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in Civil Court. In the above referred two cases, the validity of acquisition proceedings had been challenged. The Apex Court held that the Act, 1894 itself is a self-contained Code and thus for that purpose, by virtue of the provisions of Section 9, C.P.C., the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood implied barred. The ratio of the said judgments is not attracted in a case where a party claims that possession of the land is being taken which has not been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Statute. In the instant case, a Civil Suit is pending only on the ground that the possession was being taken though the land had never been notified under the provisions of the Act 1894 or the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. What the Hon’ble Apex Court has held is that the validity of acquisition proceedings as such cannot be a subject matter of Civil Suit. The ratio of the said judgments cannot be stretched to the extent that the Civil Suit is not maintainable to protect the land which has never been subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. In such a case, Civil Suit is the appropriate remedy. The petitioner’s suit is still pending in respect of the same land and some interim order has been granted. In case possession has been taken in violation of the said interim injunction, petitioner ought to have moved appropriate application before the Civil C