Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 15393
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI, J
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
BACHUBHAI MANIRAMDAS(DECD.) HEIR RAMABEN BACHUBHAI – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2000
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 for the Defendant(s) No. 4 ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,22,23 MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Defendant(s) No. 12,13,14,16.1,16.2,16.3,17,18.1,18.2,2,20,3,4,5,6.1,6.2,8 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 10,11,15,19,21,24,25,7,9
Once land is acquired and compensation accepted, original owners lose all rights, and the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in matters of land acquisition.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Plaintiffs sought possession of land acquired for public purpose, claiming non-utilization - Court held that once land vests in Government post-acquisition, ownership cannot revert to original owners, regardless of purpose fulfillment - Notice under Section 80 mandatory for suits against Government - Suit dismissed. (Paras 4.1, 6.1, 6.3, 6.5)
(B) Land Acquisition - Vesting of land - Once land is acquired and compensation accepted, original owners lose all rights - Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred in matters of land acquisition once proceedings are complete. (Paras 6.3, 6.4, 6.6)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, original landowners, filed suit for possession of land acquired in 1962-63 for a Sugarcane Research Centre, claiming it was not utilized for intended purpose. Defendants contended that land vests in Government post-compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the plaintiffs had not challenged the acquisition proceedings and had accepted compensation, thus losing their rights to the land.
Issues: Whether plaintiffs can claim possession after land acquisition proceedings are complete and whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction in such matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once land is vested in the State, the original owners have no claim to it, regardless of the purpose for which it was acquired.
Result: Appeal allowed; suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs sought possession (Para 3) |
| 2. appellants contended jurisdiction (Para 4) |
| 3. learned agp submitted (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. first appeal succeeds (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) assailing the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2000 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No.69 of 2000.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda for the appellants and learned Advocate Mr. Bhunesh Rupera for the respondents.
3. The respondents / plaintiffs are the farmers of the land admeasuring about 147.24 acres - Guntha of Talaja Taluka, district Bhavnagar. The suit land was acquired by the State for the purpose of trial-cum-demonstration i.e. TCD Farm of Sugarcane, Research Centre and Trial-cum-Demonstration Farm Seeds Development Centre. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1962– 63 by the Agriculture Department of Government of Gujarat. 1964- 1979, the cultivation of sugarcane was never made over the suit land and since the purpose of acquisition has not been fulfilled, Government is required to give back the land and the plaintiffs are ready to pay back amount of compensation with interest which they have received under the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.69 of 2000 against present appellants / original defendants for declaration and permanent injunction.
3.1. The appellants/defendants appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh.16 and contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit as there is a bar under Section 9 of the Code.
3.2. It is also the case of the appellants that once the acquisition proceedings have been concluded and the compensation has been received by the land owners, the land vests in the Government and the land owners lose their right, title and interest in the land. It is also the case of the appellants that for want of Notice under Section 80 of the Code, the suit is not maintainable. Following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court vide Exh. 17:- “1. Whether plaintiff proves that government does not want to use acquired land and wants to sell it to other any institute?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that when government desires to sell lands acquired by it at that time they have first right of purchase?
3. Whether suit for jurisdiction and court fee is under value?
3A. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim or obtain relief as prayed in terms of para 11(A) of the suit application?
4. What order and decree?”
3.4. Plaintiffs have examined Jashwantray Manishanker at Exh.33 and witnesses Batukbhai Madhubhai Vala and Nagjibhai Laljibhai, Karamshibhai Bhimjibhai vide Exh.66, 71 and 72 respectively. Defendants – Present Appellants examined Vimleshbhai Ghanshyambhai at Exh.75. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and held that the purpose of acquisition has not been fulfilled and directed the Appellants - Defendants to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs as owners of the suit land. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants are before this Court.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is in complete violation of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) and has committed a grave error by decreeing the suit.
4.1. Learned AGP has based his submissions on three counts. Firstly, that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1962–63, and the compensation was awarded to original claimants. It is submitted that after the acquisition proceedings are complete, and upon payment of compensation to the original claimants, the suit land vests in the Government and the original land owners, lose their right, title and interest over the land. It is further submitted that it is n
