Holding

A civil suit is not maintainable and a civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction in matters of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Summary

The State of Bihar issued a notification under s.4 and a declaration under s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for a housing project, and took possession on March 22, 1957, handing it to the Housing Board. The respondent filed a title suit and sought an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC to restrain the State from dispossessing him. The Subordinate Judge and the Patna High Court granted and modified the injunction, maintaining the status quo. The Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code and civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits or grant injunctions concerning the validity of acquisition proceedings, which can be challenged only before the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, the civil suit was not maintainable, the injunction was illegal, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts’ orders.

Issues considered

Whether a civil suit is maintainable when the land has been acquired and possession handed over under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether a civil court can grant an ad interim injunction in such a suit despite the existence of a notice under s.9 and possession under s.17(4).
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the notification under s.4 and declaration under s.6 of the Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 39 Rule 1
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 12, s. 17(4), s. 4, s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

land acquisitioneminent domaincivil suit jurisdictioninterim injunctionSection 9 noticepublic purposeArticle 226

Judgment

I I

STATE OF BIHAR A
v
DHIRENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.

APRIL 27, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Sections 4, 6; 9, 17(4) and 5-A-Govemment needing possession ur-
gentiy-.l'rocedur,,_-[Jispensing with enquiry u/s. 5-A and issuing notice u/s. 9 . C
and taking possession after 15 days-Civil suit-Whether Maintainable--Ad-
interim injunction-Whether could be issued-Held: No.

A Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act Wlls publish·
ed on February 13, 1957 acquiring the disputed land alongwltb other lands
for public purpose, namely construction of the houses by the Housing D
. ·~
Board. The declaration under s.6 was published on March 27, 1957. The
possession of the land was taken on March 22, 1957 and the same was
given to the Housing Board on the same day. Several encroachments have
been made in the land and unauthorised constructions have been made.
Steps were taken by the Housing Board to have the encroachers ejected E
from those lands. The respondent laid a Title Suit in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge and filed an interlocutory application under Order 39
Rule 1 of CPC for ad-interim injunction. The Subordinate Judge found
prima facie case with triable issue and granted injunction restraining the
appellants from dispossessing the respondent till the disposal of the snit
withont causing any disturbance to the plaintiff's possession and enjoy- F
ment of the suit land or demolition of any structures standing thereon.
On appeal, it was modified by the High Court, holding that the status quo
shall be maintained. Hence these appeals.

The question involved in these appeals was whether a civil· suit was G
maintainable and whether ad interim injunction could be issued where
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the
-f notice issued under s.9 of the Act and possession delivered to the
beneficiary.

Allowing the appeals, this Court H
857
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A HELD : 1. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are designed
to acquire the land by the State exercising the power of eminent domain
to serve the public purpose. The Act is a complete code in itself and is
meant to serve public purposes. (859-D, G]

2. By necessary implication the power of the civil court to take
B cognizance of the case under s.9 of CPC stands excluded and a civil court
has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the
notification under s.4 and declaration under s.6, except by the High Court
in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the civil suit
itself was not maintainable. When such is the situation, the finding of the
•
c trial court that there is a prime facie triable issue is unsustainable.
Moreover, possession was already taken and handed over to Housing
Board. So, the order of injunction was without jurisdiction. The injunction
granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are thus illegal.
(859-H, 860-A, BJ

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5753 of
1995. .,.. ,
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.86 of the Patna High Court
in Misc. A No. 16 of 1986.

E Promod Swarup for the Appellant.

S.K. Sinha for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F Leave granted. f-""

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order
dated 7th February, 1986 passed by the Patna High Court at Patna in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16 of 1986. A notification under s.4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 1/94 (for short, 'the Act') was published on
G February 13, 1957 acquiring the disputed land alongwith other lands for
public purpose, namely construction of the houses by the Housing Board,
known as the Peoples Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd., .\ -
Patna. The declaration under s.6, was published on March 27, 1957. The
possession of the land was taken on March 22, 1957 and the same was given
H to the Housing Board on the same day. It would appear that several
~,.
STATE OF BIHAR v. D. KUMAR 859
--=-. encroachments have been made in the land and unauthorised constructions A
appears to have been made. Steps were taken by the Housing Board to
have the encroachers ejected from those lands. As sequel thereof, it would
appear that the respondent laid Title Suit No. 329/85 in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge-1 at Patna and filed an interlocutory application under
Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC for ad-interim injunction. The Subordinate Judge
B
in his order dated 18th October, 1985 found prima facie case with triable
issue. Accordingly, injunction was issued, restraining the appellants from
A dispossessing the respondent till the disposal of the suit without causing
any disturbance to the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit land
or demolition of any structure standing thereon. On appeal, it was modified
by the High Cour~ holding that the status quo as on October 18, 1985 shall c
be maintained. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

The question is whether a civil suit is maintainable and whether ad
interim injunction could be issued where proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the notice issued under s.9 of the D
~
Act and delivered to the beneficiary. The provisions of the Act are
designed to acquire the land by the State exercising the power of eminent
domain to serve the public purpose. The State is enjoined to comply with
statutory requirements contained in s.4 and s.6 of the Act by proper
publication of notification and declaration within limitation and procedural
steps of publication in papers and the local publication envisaged under E
the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Jn publication of the notifications
and declaration under s.6, the public purpose gets crystalised and becomes
conclusive. Thereafter, the State is entitled to authorise the Land Acquisi-
~ tion Officer to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to make the
award. Section llA now prescribes limitation to make the award within 2 F
years from the last date of publication envisaged under s.6 of the Act. In
an appropriate case, where the Govt. needs possession of the land urgently,
it would exercise the power under s.17( 4) of the Act and dispense with the
enquiry under s5-A. Thereon, the State is entitled to issue notice to the
parties under s.9 and on expiry of 15 days, the State is entitled to take
immediate possession even before the award could be made. Otherwise, it G
-1 would take possession after the award under s.12. Thus, it could be seen
that the Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public
purpose. We are, therefore, inclined to think, as presently advised, that by
necessary implication the power of the civil court to take cognizance of the
case under s.9 of CPC stands excluded, and a civil court has no jurisdiction H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R:

A to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under
s.4 and declaration under s.6, except by the High Court in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the civil suit itself was not
maintainable. When such is the situation, the finding of the trial court that
there is a prima facie triable issue is unsustainable. Moreover, possession
B was already taken and handed over to Housing Board. So, the order of
injunction was without jurisdiction.

The injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High
Court are thus illegal. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the orders
of the courts below are set aside, but, under the circumstances, without
C costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.

;-