Back
2005(3) JLJ 286
S.S. Jha and P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Dev Kunwar Ben Shah (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No. 143 of 2000 : against the judgment and decree of II Additional District Judge, Vidisha, passed in Civil Suit No. 7-A of 1999;
Decided on 6.5.2005.
(2) Constitution of India--Art.226--Civil P.C, 1908--civil suit barred-- jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226 can be invoked.
Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant State wanted to establish Krishi Upaj Mandi at village Mirjapur for which notification was issued for acquisition of 20.216 hectare of land. In the said notification, Khasra No. 30 having total area or 4.620 hectare was also included. Out of the said land, plaintiff is the owner of 2.530 hectare. Preliminary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act‘) was issued on 15.12.1995 and final notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.5.1996. Plaintiff pleaded that under section 11A of the Act, compensation was required to be determined within two years from the date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act. Plaintiff claimed that it is mandatory to pass award within two years and on failure to pass award within two years, acquisition proceedings will lapse which will mean that entire proceedings initiated under sections 4 and 6 of the Act had lapsed and fresh acquisition under section 6 of the Act is not permissible. Plaintiff further submitted that after expiry of period of one year after notification under section 4 of the Act, fresh notification under section 6 for declaration cannot be permitted. Plaintiff prayed that said notification be declared as void ab initio and it be declared that there was no acquisition of plaintiffs land.
Suit was opposed by the defendant and the defendant submitted that the suit as filed is not maintainable and acquisition proceedings are proper.
In this case, no evidence was recorded and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, suit has been dismissed. [Paras 2 to 4
Held: Apex Court, in the case of State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar (supra), has held that the Act being a complete Code in itself, jurisdiction of civil Court is excluded by necessary implication, and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. Thus, in view of the judgment of the apex Court in the aforesaid case which has been followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pashu Chikitsa Vibhagiya Sahakari Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal (supra), suit will not be maintainable. 1995(II) MPWN 106 (SC) and AIR 1997 SC 2076 followed. 2000(3) MPLJ 244 relied on. 1969 JLJ 1 (SC) distinguished. [Paras 8 & 12
(3) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 9--normal rule is that civil Court has jurisdiction to try suits of civil nature--exclusion to jurisdiction not to be readily inferred.
The normal rule of law is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try civil suit. The test adopted for examining such a question is (i) whether the Legislature‘s intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication and, (ii) whether the statute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it. AIR 2000 SC 2220 followed. [Para 9
(4) Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Ss. 11(1) and 11A--previous approval of Government or authorised officer as provided under S. 11(1) is mandatory--limitation period of two years envisaged under S. 11 A is also mandatory. (1994) 5 SCC 686 followed. 1999(2) MPLJ 585 relied on. [Para 8
(5) Land Acquisition Act, 1894--S. 4 r/w S. 17 and 11A--notification under S. 4 r/w S.17 not issued--provisions of S. 11 A not applicable. (1993) 4 SCC 369 followed. [Para 6
(6) Land Acquisition Act, 1894--S.11(1)--grant of approval or refusal by Commissioner--is only an administrative act-Commissioner cannot sit in appeal against the proposed award. 2003 AIR SCW 1807 followed. [Para 7
(7) Land Acquisition Act, 1894--S.11(1)--Commissioner has jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Act. (1998) 2 SCC 572 followed. [Para 9
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 9&Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894&/kkjk 4] 6] 11¼1½] 11d rFkk 17&vf/kfu;e vius esa laiw.kZ lafgrk gS&Hkwfe ds vtZu dh dk;Zokgh&flfoy U;k;ky; esa vk{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk&flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk foof{kr :i ls oftZr gSA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq-226& &flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&flfoy okn oftZr&vuq-226 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; fy;k tk ldrk gSA
oknh us ?kks"k.kk vkSj vkKkid O;kns‘k ds fy, flfoy okn Qkby fd;kA oknh us nkok fd;k fd çfroknh jkT; xzke fetkZiqj esa Ñf"k mit eaMh LFkkfir djuk pkgrk Fkk ftlds fy, 20-216 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ds vtZu ds fy, vf/klwpuk tkjh dh xbZ FkhA mDr vf/klwpuk esa dqy 4-620 gSDVs;j {ks=Qy dk [kljk Ø-30 Hkh lfEefyr FkkA mDr Hkwfe esa oknh 2-530 gSDVs;j Hkwfe dk Lokeh gSA Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e ¼,rfLeui‘pkr~ ^vf/kfu;e* dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu çkjafHkd vf/klwpuk 15-12-1995 dks tkjh dh xbZ Fkh vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu vafre vf/klwpuk 10-5-1996 dks tkjh dh xbZ FkhA oknh us vfHkopfur fd;k fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu ?kks"k.kk çdkf‘kr fd, tkus ls nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj çfrdj vo/kkfjr fd;k tkuk visf{kr FkkA oknh us nkok fd;k fd vf/kfu.kZ; nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj ikfjr fd;k tkuk vkKkid gS vkSj nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd, tkus esa foQy jgus ij vtZu dk;Zokgh O;ixr gks tk,xh ftldk vFkZ gksxk fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 rFkk 6 ds v/khu laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh O;ixr gks xbZ vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu iqu% vtZu vuqKkr ugha gSA oknh us ;g vkSj fuosnu fd;k fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk ds i‘pkr~ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k lekIr gks tkus ds i‘pkr~ /kkjk 6 ds v/khu ubZ vf/klwpuk vuqKkr ugha gSA oknh us çkFkZuk dh fd mDr vf/klwpuk vkjaHkr% ‘kwU; ?kksf"kr dh tk, vkSj ;g ?kks"k.kk dh tk, fd oknh dh Hkwfe dk vtZu ugha gqvk FkkA
çfroknh }kjk okn dk fojks/k fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj çfroknh us fuosnu fd;k fd Qkby fd;k x;k okn pykus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj vtZu dk;Zokgh mfpr gSA
bl ekeys esa dksbZ lk{; vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k rFkk i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij okn [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 2 ls 4½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fcgkj jkT; fo- /khjsanz dqekj ds ekeys ¼iwoksZDr½ esa mPpre U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vf/kfu;e vius esa Lo;aiw.kZ lafgrk gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk vko‘;d foo{kk }kjk vioftZr gS] rFkk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; fy;k tk ldrk gSA bl çdkj] iwoksZDr ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh n`f"V ls] ftldk vuqlj.k bl U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk i‘kq fpfdRlk foHkkxh; lgdkjh fuekZ.k lfefr] Hkksiky ds ekeys ¼iwoksZDr½ esa fd;k x;k gS] okn pykus ;ksX; ugha gksxkA 1995¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 106 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 2076 vuqlfjrA 2003¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 224 voyafcrA 1969 ts ,y ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 12½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 9&lkekU fu;e ;g gS fd flfoy U;k;ky; dks flfoy çÑfr ds oknksa ds fopkj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk gS&vf/kdkfjrk dk viotZu lgt&gh vuqfer ugha fd;k tkuk gksxkA
fof/k dk lkekU; fu;e ;g gS fd flfoy U;k;ky;ksa ds flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu ;Fkk micaf/kr muds }kjk ftudk laKku ;k rks vfHkO;Drr% vFkok foof{kr :i ls vioftZr gS muds flok;] flfoy çÑfr ds leLr oknkas ds fopkj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk gS] fdarq ,slk viotZu lgt&gh vuqfer ugha fd;k tkrk rFkk mi/kkj.kk] flfoy U;k;ky;ksa }kjk flfoy okn ds fopkj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk ds viotZu dh mis{kk mldh fo|ekurk ds i{k esa dh tkuk pkfg,A ,sls ç‘u ds ijh{k.k ds fy, dlkSVh gS fd ¼1½ viotZu dk fo/kkf;dk dk mn~ns‘; vfHkO;Drr% mn~Hkwr gksrk gS vFkok vko‘;d foo{kk }kjk vkSj ¼2½ D;k ç‘uxr dkuwu esa] mlds v/khu fd, x, vkns‘k ls O;fFkr i{kdkj dks i;kZIr vkSj lek/kkuçn vkuqdfYid mipkj micaf/kr gSA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 2220 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9½
¼4½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894& &/kkjk 11¼1½ rFkk 11d&/kkjk 11¼1½ esa ;Fkk micaf/kr ljdkj vFkok çkf/kÑr vf/kdkjh dk iwoZ&vuqeksnu vkKkid gSa&/kkjk 11d ds v/khu ifjdfYir nks o"kZ dh le;kof/k Hkh vkKkid gSA ¼1994½ 5 ,l lh lh 686 vuqlfjrA 1999¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 585 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8½
¼5½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894& &/kkjk 4 lgifBr /kkjk 17 rFkk 11d&/kkjk 4 lgifBr /kkjk 17 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk tkjh ugha dh xbZ&/kkjk 11d ds mica/k ykxw ughaA ¼1993½ 4 ,l lh lh 369 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6½
¼6½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894& &/kkjk 11¼1½&vkqDr }kjk vuqeksnu çnku fd;k tkuk vFkok ukeatwj fd;k tkuk&dsoy ç‘kklfud dk;Z gSa&vkqDr çLrkfor vf/kfu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy ugha lqu ldrkA 2003 ,l vkb ,l lh MCy;w 1807 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7½
¼7½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894& &/kkjk 11¼1½&vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ‘kfDr;k¡ ç;qDr djus dh vk;qDr dks vf/kdkfjrk gSA ¼1998½2 ,l lh lh 572 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9½
Jha, J.--1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against dismissal of her suit by the trial Court.
2. Facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant State wanted to establish Krishi Upaj Mandi at village Mirjapur for which notification was issued for acquisition of 20.216 hectare of land. In the said notification, Khasra No. 30 having total area of 4.620 hectare was also included. Out of the said land, plaintiff is the owner of 2.530 hectare. Preliminary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act") was issued on 15.12.1995 and final notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.5.1996. Plaintiff pleaded that under section 11A of the Act, compensation was required to be determined within two years from the date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act. Plaintiff claimed that it is mandatory to pass award within two years and on failure to pass award within two years, acquisition proceedings will lapse which will mean that entire proceedings initiated under sections 4 and 6 of the Act had lapsed and fresh acquisition under section 6 of the Act is not permissible.
Plaintiff further submitted that after expiry of period of one year after notification under section 4 of the Act, fresh notification under section 6 for declaration cannot be permitted. Plaintiff prayed that said notification be declared as void ab initio and it be declared that there was no acquisition of plaintiff's land.
3. Suit was opposed by the defendant and the defendant submitted that the suit as filed is not maintainable and acquisition proceedings are proper.
4. In this case, no evidence was recorded and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, suit has been dismissed. Trial Court, in para 7 of the judgment, has recorded a finding that acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.4.1996 and award was passed on 4.4.1998, therefore, the proceedings of land acquisition had not lapsed.
5. In the present case, after publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act, amount of compensation was determined, by the Land Acquisition Officer on 4.4.1998. After determination of the compensation, matter was referred to the Commissioner for approval. Commissioner has mentioned that the lands were acquired under section 4 on 15.12.1995 and notification under section 6 of the Act for declaration was published on 10.5.1998 and for the first time award has been referred for approval on 9.7.1998 to the Commissioner which was returned back with some objections. Award for approval was sent back again on 2.9.1998. Commissioner mentioned that since the award was sent for approval two years after the notification dated 10.5.1996, therefore, it is not proper to approve the award and directed the authorities to publish fresh declaration under section 6 of the Act and refer the matter for further proceedings. Relying upon this order passed by the Commissioner dated 23.9.1998, plaintiff claimed that the proceedings had come to an end.
6. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the approval is not necessary. He invited attention of the Court to the provisions of section 11(1) of the Act wherein it is provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Second proviso further provides that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment in the cases of State of U.P. v. Rajeev Gupta [(1994) 5 SCC 686].
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
