Civil Suit is barred to challenge steps taken in Land Acquisition

State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar, (1995) 4 SCC 229 at page 230

3. 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 Section 9 of the 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 Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act by proper publication of notification and declaration within limitation and procedural steps of publication in papers and the local publications envisaged under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In publication of the notifications and declaration under Section 6, the public purpose gets crystallised and becomes conclusive. Thereafter, the State is entitled to authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to make the award. Section 11-A now prescribes limitation to make the award within 2 years from the last date of publication envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. In an appropriate case, where the Government needs possession of the land urgently, it would exercise the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Thereon, the State is entitled to issue notice to the parties under Section 9 and on expiry of 15 days, the State is entitled to take immediate possession even before the award could be made. Otherwise, it would take possession after the award under Section 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 Section 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 Section 4 and declaration under Section 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 was already taken and handed over to the Housing Board. So, the order of injunction was without jurisdiction.


See also
Bangalore Development Authority v. K.S. Narayan, (2006) 8 SCC 336

Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat (1996) 7 SCC 218
State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh, (2011) 14 SCC 713 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1012 at page 718

Development Authority cannot be blamed for enchroachment, if any, made after possession of plot was delivered to original allottee

Development Authority cannot be blamed for enchroachment, if any, made after possession of plot was delivered to original allottee

HUDA v. Viresh Sangwan, (2012) 1 SCC 256

Writ does not lie even against State for specific performance

2004 2 AWC1770

 

Ram Nagar Allottees Association v/s LDA

Land Acquisition - Urgency in "Residential Purpose" acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17 - The power of urgency by the Government for a public purpose like Residential Scheme cannot be invoked as a rule but has to be by way of exception.

 

Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust Vs. Union of India and Others

MARCH 21, 2012

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3813 of 2007 

Invocation of Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition - Colourable Exercise - Part VII Land Acquisition

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 533  

Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 164, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that urgency clause provided in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be lightly invoked, and that there is no justification to invoke urgency in case of proposed development of township in order to do away with the principles of natural justice as embodied in Section 5A of the 1894 Act.

Darshan Lal Nagpal v. Government of NCT of Delhi  Civil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011 decided on 03.01.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again categorically held that compulsory acquisition of the property belonging to a private individual is a serious matter and has grave repercussions on his Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property without the sanction of law – Article 300A and the legal rights.

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd v. G.Jayarama Reddy reported in  (2011) 10 SCC 608   - Colourable exercise of power for land acquisition for corporates

Devinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 12 October, 2007  Appeal (civil) 4843 of 2007 (reported 2008 SCC)

 

 

Change of end use of land acquired for public purpose

1.

Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society, Hyderabad & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., reported as (2000) 1 SCC 533 (Three Judges Bench) 

"19… We are unable to accept the extreme contention urged by the learned Senior Advocate for the Government that the land should be permitted to be utilized for purposes other than those for which it was acquired. Once we uphold the validity of the proceedings for acquisition under the Acquisition Act,

it has to follow that the lands have to be utilized for the purpose for which they were acquired…."

2.

Narpat Singh & Ors. v. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr., reported as (2002) 4 SCC 666. 

"12… The land acquired
must be used for the public purpose for which it has been acquired."
--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device