Sri. L. Nanjappa vs The Commissioner

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant disputes that the suit property was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings though it was vehemently contended on behalf of the respondent-defendant, namely, the Bangalore Development Authority, that it was so notified. The notification itself has been produced and it is evident that the suit property is part of an item that is, in fact, notified. This is evident from Exhibits D. 2 and D. 3. The court below, however, has not addressed this circumstance, but has proceeded on a technicality namely, that the appellant ought to have produced the originals of the gazette notifications and not the certified copies and has consequently dismissed the suit.

This may not be a valid reason, since the documents in question were gazette notifications and the court could even take judicial notice of the same. Therefore, the reasoning of the court below on that count is not tenable. However, on a point of law, namely, when the land in question is subject matter of acquisition proceedings, either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or other legislations, such as, the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, as is the case in the present case on hand, a civil suit would not be maintainable. This has been the consistent legal position as laid down by the apex court and reiterated as recently in The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and Another, Therefore, the suit should have been dismissed on a preliminary issue as regards the maintainability. Notwithstanding the several grounds that are raised in the present appeal, the appeal would have to be dismissed on this point of law. It is also observed by the apex court that insofar as the challenge to the acquisition proceedings could only be by recourse to seeking such remedies as may be available in writ jurisdiction and that a civil suit was not maintainable. Therefore, without prejudice to any remedy that may be available to the appellant elsewhere, the appeal is dismissed.