A
B
S.P. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY AND ORS.
v.
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ORS.
MARCH 26, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
S.4( 1 )-Acquisition of /and-Land owner's challenge failed with dis-
C missal of his special leave petition by Supreme Cowt and acquisition became
final-Suit for injunction filed by land owne1-Inte1im injunction granted by
trial coult vacated by appellate cowt-H e/d, Civil suit was not maintainable
and interim injunction was rightly vacated.
D
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
S.1)-Acquisition of land u/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Suit
for injunction-Held, Civil suit relating to acquisition proceedings is not
maintainable and by implication, cognizance u/s. 9 is barred-Coiuts cannot
compel the Govemment to withdraw notification u/s. 4( 1) of Land Acquisi-
E tion Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Spccia.l Leave Petition (C)
No. 4033 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.97 of the Kernataka High
F
Court in C.R.P. No. 4097 of 1996.
S.R. Bhat and Ms. Kiran for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court
on January 20, 1997 in CRP No. 4097/96.
The admitted facts are that the acquisition of the petitioners' land
has become final. Admittedly notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was issued. The petitioners have
H challenged the notification in the year 1988. The High Court dismissed the
370
S.S.SUBRAMANYASHETTY v. K.S.R.T.CORPN.
371
writ petition on January 17, 1990. The special leave petition filed by the A
petitioners was dismissed by this Court on November 21, 1994.
It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation to
denotify the part of the land on the ground that he was willing to give 5
out of 11 cents, free of cost. He claims that the Secretary has examined the
matter and favourably recommended for consideration. Since they were not B
been considered, he filed the civil suit for an injunction for restraining
them from interfering with his possession. The District Judge vacated the
interim injunction granted by the trial Court and in the revision the High
Court has dismissed it. Thus, this special leave petition.
In view of the settled legal position that the notification had become C
final and the proceedings had attained finality, the civil suit was not
maintainable. This Court has repeatedly held that a civil suit relating to
acquisition proceedings is not maintainable and by implication, cognizance
under Section t;, CPC, is barred. The Court cannot issue mandatory
injunction against the State to denotify the acquisition under Section 48. D
Therefore, the question of granting an injunction against the authority from
proceedings in accordance with the law does not arise. The High Court,
therefore, was right in refusing to grant injunction. The Court cannot
compel the Government to withdraw the notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act. It is for the Government to consider the same on merits and it E
keeping in mind subservience of public interest. In view of the fact that
notification was upheld by this Court and has become 'final, the Govern-
ment cannot retract from the steps taken.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed. F
Lex