Ramesh Chandra and Others vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for appellants. One appears on behalf of respondent though case has been called in revised. Hence, we proceed to decide this appeal ex parte. This is a plaintiffs appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, arisen from judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2004 passed by Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, dismissing plaintiff-appellants Original Suit No. 864 of 2000.

Plaintiffs instituted aforesaid suit for purposes of declaration that land in dispute Khasra No. 580/1, area 0-7-10, situated at Village - Sahibabad, Pargana-Loni, Tehsil and District - Ghaziabad, whereon there existed a saw mill and constructions owned by plaintiffs and they are in possession thereof hence respondent authority should be restrained from interfering in their possession in any manner.

Plaintiff-appellants case, as set up in the plaint is, that in exercise of powers under Section 28 /29 , notice was served upon appellants by respondent Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ''UPAVP'') on 26.8.1992 for acquisition of land in dispute. There against, plaintiffs filed objections and hence land in question cannot be said to have been acquired by defendant-respondent.

Defendant-respondent clearly stated that land in question was already acquired by them and award was also given by Collector, whereafter compensation was paid and received by plaintiffs on 22nd March, 1992.

Trial Court formulated following nine issues:

Issue No. 1 was answered against plaintiffs holding that construction has been raised over disputed land after its acquisition. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he owned property in dispute at the time of filing suit. Consequently, issue No. 2 was also answered against plaintiff. Issue No. 3 deals with valuation and was answered in favour of plaintiff, but issues No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were all answered against plaintiff and in favour of respondents. Consequently, suit was dismissed by Court below, observing that in the matter of acquisition of land, validity thereof cannot be examined by Civil Court and suit is barred.

The only question which has been raised and need be considered is "Whether Civil Court was right in holding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter, when dispute of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is raised?

Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for appellants faily stated that this question is now concluded in Laxmi Chand and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others, , wherein Apex Court, in paragraph No. 3, has said:

"It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The Civil Court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional Courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the Civil Court."

Again, same question has been answered in Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S. Narayan, , wherein Apex Court reiterated its view and relying on earlier decision in Laxmi Chand and others v. Gram Panchayat Kararia and others (Supra), held that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.

Therefore, aforesaid question is answered against plaintiffs-appellants and in favour of defendant. Judgment of Court below therefore, cannot be said to be faulty in any manner.

Appeal has no merit. Dismissed. No order as to costs.