LexLAXMI CHAND & ORS. versus GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARARIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LAXMI CHAND & ORS. \". GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARARIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 6, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, .I.I.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss.4(1), 6, 11, 48(1)-Land acquisition pmceedings-Validity of- C Jwisdiction of Civil Cowt to give declaration on-Acquisition of land for Gram Panchayat-Gram Panchayat initially expressed lack of funds but later proceeded with acquisition-No notification under S.48( 1) withdrawing ac- quisition issued-Award made-Acquisition and award challenged before Civil Court-Held, Civil Cowt devoid of jwisdiction to give declaration on validity of procedure contemplated under the Act-Dissatisfied claimants to D seek remedies pmvided under the Act or the Constinttion of b1dia-Lack of funds with Gram Pancl1ilyat does not divest Land Acquisition Officer of jwisdiction to proceed with inquiry under S.11 and to make award. The appellant land owners filed a writ petition before the High Court E challenging the notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring their lands. The writ petition was dismissed and the Land Acquisition Officer made an award. The land owners filed a civil suit challenging the validity of the acquisition and the award on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer having once dropped the acquisition F proceedings was devoid of po\\-'er to reopen the same at the behest of the Gram Panchayat and make the award under S.11 of the Act. The Civil Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The land owners' appeal as well as their Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the land owners filed the petition for special leave. G Dismissing the petitrnn, this Court HELD : 1. Lack of funds with the Gram Panchayat does not divest the Land Acquisition Officer of his power and jurisdiction to proceed with the em1uiry under S.11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to make the award thereunder. Though the Gram Panchayat had initially expressed about its H lack of funds, soon therealler it came forward to proceed with the ac<1uisi- 774 .,........ - LAXMI CHAND v. URAM PAN CHAY AT 775 lion. Moreover, no notification under sub-section(!) of S.48 of the Act A \\'ithclra\\·ing the acquisition of land was published in the Gazette. The Civil Court as \Yell as the 1-Iigh Court con1mitted no error of la\\' \\'arranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [777-E, 776-F] 2.1. The scheme of the Land Ac'luisition Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases B arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. A dissatis- fieo claimant is provided \11th the remedy of reference under S.18 and a further appeal under S.54 oftbe Act. The Civil Court is devoid of jurisdic- tion to give declaration on invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the C constitutional Courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution respec- tively with self~imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. [ 777-C-D] 2.2. In the instant case, the High Court had upheld the validity of D the notification under S.4(1) and the declaration under S.6 of the Act. The special leave petition against the order of the High Court determining the market value of the land, trees and buildings thereon was dismissed by this Court. [776-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23740 of 1995. From the .Judgment and Order dated 10.1.94 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in LP.A. No. l of 1994. S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and Baldev K. Satija for the Appellants. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 E F (for short, "the Act") acquiring land for construction of the school for public purpose, was published on April 16, 1969. Validity thereof was G challenged in C.M.P. No. 60 of 196'f. The High Court by its order dated January 23,1970 dismissed the writ petition. Award under Section 11 was made on September 24, 1974. Validity of the acquisition and of the award was challenged by filing a civil suit of January 3, 1975 for a declaration that the land could not be acquired. The acquisition proceedings having been H A B c 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. once dropped by the L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.