LexTHE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus BRIJESH REDDY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 853 THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v. BRIJESH REDDY & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1051 of 2013) FEBRUARY 08, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- s. 9 - Jurisdiction of civil court - To adjudicate on the dispute contemplated under C Land Acquisition Act - Land acquired by Development Authority - Subsequently purchased from the original owner - Suit by the purchaser for permanent injunction against the Authority - Trial Court held that suit was not maintainable - High Court remanding the matter to trial court to adjudicate D the suit on merits - On appeal, held: Civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or grant injunction on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act - The acquisition proceedings having been completed before the land was purchased, the purchaser had E no right to maintain the suit against the Authority- High Court erred in remitting the matter, when the suit was not maintainable - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Certain land including the land in dispute was acquired by appellant-Development Authority in 1960-70. F The respondent No. 1 purchased the land in dispute from its original owner in 1995. He filed civil suit against the appellant-Authority for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable. First appeal was allowed by High Court and the matter was remitted to the trial G court with a direction to dispose of the same on merits. In appeal to this Court, the questions for consideration were whether civil court had jurisdiction to 853 H 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R. A entertain a suit when the Schedule lands were acquired under Land Acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court without examining the question with regard to maintainability of the suit? B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of C civil court with regard to a particular matter can be said to be excluded if there is an express provision or by implication it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. An objection as to the exclusion of civil court's jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be D taken before the trial court and at the earliest failing which the higher court may refuse to entertain the plea in the absence of proof of prejudice. [Para 8] [860-E-G-H; 861-A] State of Bihar vs. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors. (1995) 4 E SCC 229: 1995 (3) SCR 857; Laxmi Chand and Ors. vs. F Gram Panchayat, Kararia and Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 218: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 774; Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs. K. S. Narayan (2006) 8 SCC 336: · 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 186 - relied on. 1.2. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose. By necessary implication, the power of 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 G or legality of the notification u/s. 4, declaration u/s. 6 and subsequent proceedings except by tha t-:igh 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 H invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. I COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT 855 AUTHORITY v. BRIJESH REDDY The only right available for the aggrieved person is to A approach the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. [Para 13) [864-D-G] 1.3. No doubt, in the instant case, the plaintiffs 8 approached the civil court with a prayer only for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the Development Authority, their agents, servants and any one claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is true that there is no challenge to the C acquisition proceedings. However, in view of the assertion of the Development Authority, in their written statements, about the initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.