CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1997) 03 SC CK 0044

S.P. Subramanya Shetty and others vs Karnataka State of Road Transport Corporation and others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 26 March 1997 · Citation: AIR 1997 SC 2076 : (1997) AIRSCW 1902 : (1997) 4 JT 594 : (1997) 3 SCALE 514 : (1997) 11 SCC 250 : (1997) 3 SCR 370 : (1997) 4 Supreme 5

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · D. P. Wadhwa, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Leave, Petition (C) No. 4033 of 1997
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 356 words

K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.—We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court on January 20, 1997 in CRP No. 4097/96.

2.

The admitted facts are that the acquisition of the petitioners' land has become final. Admittedly notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was issued. The petitioners have challenged the notification in the year 1988. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on January 17, 1990. The SLP filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court on November 21, 1994.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation to denitrify the part of the land on the ground that he was willing to give 5 out of 11 cents, free of cost. He claims that the Secretary has examined the matter and favourably recommended for consideration. Since they were not been considered, he filed the civil suit for an injunction for restraining them from interfering with his possession. The District Judge vacated the interim injunction granted by the trial Court and in the revision the High Court has dismissed it. Thus, this special leave petition.

4.

In view of the settled legal position that the notification had become final and the proceedings had attained finality, the civil suit was not maintainable. This Court has repeatedly held that a civil suit relating to acquisition proceedings is not maintainable and by implication, cognizance u/s 9, CPC, is barred. The Court cannot issue mandatory injunction against the State to denitrify the acquisition u/s 48. Therefore, the question of granting an injunction against the authority from proceedings in accordance with the law does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to grant injunction. The Court cannot compel the Government to withdraw the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. It is for the Government to consider the same on merits and it keeping in mind subservience of public interest. In view of the fact that notification was upheld by this Court and has become final, the Government cannot retract from the steps taken.

5.

The SLP is accordingly dismissed.