S.P. Subramanya Shetty & Ors vs K.S.R.T.C. & Ors
- SCC(1997) 11 SCC 250
- Neutral1997 INSC 323
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2076
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 370
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have attained finality through judicial affirmation, a civil suit seeking to restrain the acquiring authority from proceeding with acquisition or seeking an injunction against the authority is not maintainable; cognizance under section 9, CPC is barred. The Court cannot issue a mandatory injunction compelling the Government to withdraw a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; any reconsideration of the acquisition on the basis of subsequent representations is a matter for the Government to decide on merits and in light of public interest, not a matter for judicial compulsion through injunction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R 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 had challenged the notification in the year 1988. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on January 17,1990. The special leave petition filed by the 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 had examined the matter and favourably recommended for consideration. Since they were not 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 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 9, CPC, is barred. The Court cannot issue mandatory injunction against the state to denotify the acquisition under section 48. 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 keeping in mind subservience of public interest. In view of the fact that notification was upheld by this Court and has become final, the Government cannot retract from the steps taken.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free