COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus K.S. NARAYAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 11-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
B 
v. 
K.S. NARAYAN 
OCTOBER 11. 1006 
[G.P. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA. JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act; Ss.4. 6, 30 and 31/Bangalore Development 
Authority Act, 1976; Ss. 17 and 19: 
C 
Acquisition proceedings-Challenged on grounds that neither notice 
served to owners of the property in question nor compensation awarded-
Trial Court decreed all the suits-High Court granting liberty to the plaintiffs 
to amend the petitions since neither possession/ownership of the properties in 
question was established by the plaintiffs nor any relief was claimed by them 
D in the petitions-Remitted the matter to trial Court for decision afresh-Trial 
Court dismissed the amended petitions holding that validity of acquisition 
proceedings cannot be questioned before a Civil Court-Appeal against allowed 
by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Property in question purchased by the 
plaintiffs after issuance of Notification for acquisition by the authorities-
Since the scheduled property did not appear in the assessment list/revenue 
E records of the authorities concerned, Notices could not be served to the 
plaintiffs-Thus, High Court erred in holding the acquisition proceedings 
invalid for not serving the Notice-The question of validity of Land Acquisition 
Notification and its effect could only be examined in a writ proceeding by the 
High Court and not by the Civil Court-Hence, order passed by the High 
F Court is set aside and the one passed by the trial Court affirmed-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 96-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226. 
The plaintiff-respondent purchased the property in dispute by means 
of a registered sale deed. The plaintiff applied for mutation entries and 
the same was granted by the authorities in his favour. Allegedly, the 
G property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as 
neither notice of acquisition had been received by the plaintiff nor any 
award for compensation regarding the said property was received by him. 
Though, the appellant-authority had no right, title or interest over the 
property but it was fryfn"g to dispossess the respondent on the ground of 
H 
186 
COMMR .. BANGALORE DEVEWPMENT AUll{ORITY r. K.S. NARA YAN 
J 87 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. . 
. 
. 
·. 
. 
I .. 
alleged acquisition. Aggrieved, he filed a Suit in the Civil Court praying\ A 
. 
. 
·-
. 
I 
for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant-Authority and 
others restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment 
of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure 
situate thereon. Nine other suits on similar issue were also filed. The trial 
Court decreed all the ten suits. The appeals preferred by the Authority 
were allowed by the High Court granting liberty to the plaintiffs to apply B 
for amendment of the plaint as plaintifrs did not claim any relief, and also 
remitting the matter to trial Court for decision afresh. The plaintiffs • 
applied for amendment ~fthe plaint. Amended petitions were considered. 
by the trial Court. Trial Court dismissed the petitions holding that validity 
or othenvise of the acquisition proceedings cannot be questioned before C 
the CivUCourt. Pl~intiffs preferred appeals before the High Court under 
Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code. High Court held the acquisition 
proceedings invalid and passed a decree for declaration of title and also 
for possession in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In fact the plaintiffs in all the ten suits purchased the 
plaint scheduled property some time in the year 1985. The date of purchase 
of plaint scheduled property by the plaintiffs in all the ten suits is 
mentioned in the first judgment of the High Court remanding the matter 
to the trial Court. Thus, there was no occasion for serving any notice upon 
_the plaintiffs as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Bangalore . 
Development Authority Act as their names could not have appeared in · 
the assessment list of the Local Authority or in the land revenue register 
D 
E 
at the relevant time. Therefore, the whole basis on which the High Court 
held the acquisition proceedings to be invalid is erroneous and cannot be F 
sustained. [194-B, CJ 
· 
1.2. The question, whether. a civil suit is maintainable to challenge 
/ 
. 
. 
the acquisition proceedings, is no longer res integra.The Civil Court cannot. 
go into the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.