Vanarathna vs The Bangalore Development Authority

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The appellant has raised the challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Court of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5890/1997. The Trial Court has dismissed the appellant''s suit for bare injunction on the ground that the appellant has purchased the suit schedule property subsequent to the issuance of the acquisition notifications. The Trial Court''s judgment deserves to be upheld by giving an additional reason. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and the cognizance of the suit of civil nature is impliedly barred. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to try any suit pursuant to the compulsory acquisition of lands. The only right that an aggrieved person can exercise is to approach the constitutional courts - the High Court and the Supreme Court under the plenary power conferred by Articles 226 and 136 respectively of the Constitution of India. In saying so, I am fortified by the Apex Court''s judgments in the case of Laxmi Chand and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others, and State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others, . The consistent view is reiterated in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and Another, . It has this to say in paragraph No. 18 of its judgment:

It is clear that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose. By necessary implication, the power of the civil court to take cognizance of the case u/s 9 CPC stands excluded and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification u/s 4, declaration u/s 6 and subsequent proceedings except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction being granted on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right available for the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Needless to observe that the appellant, if so advised and subject to the appellant explaining the delay, laches, etc. to the satisfaction of the Writ Court, may exercise the liberty of filing the writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief of declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, etc. No order as to costs.