HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 786 of 2004 Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra & Another Respondent :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Counsel for Appellant :- P.K.Singhal,A.P. Paul,B.B. Paul,P.K.S.Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.P. Srivastava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for appellants. One appears on hehalf of respondent though case has been called in revised. Hence, we proceed to decide this appeal ex-parte.
2. This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, arisen from judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2004 passed by Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, dismissing plaintiff-appellants Original Suit No. 864 of 2000.
3. Plaintiffs instituted aforesaid suit for purposes of declaration that land in dispute Khasra No. 580/1, area 0-7-10, situated at Village - Shahibabad, Pargana - Loni, Tehsil and District - Ghaziabad, whereon there existed a saw mill and constructions owned by plaintiffs and they are in possession thereof hence respondent authority should be restrained from interfering in their possession in any manner.
4. Plaintiff-appellants case, as set up in the plaint is, that in exercise of powers under Section 28/29, notice was served upon appellants by respondent Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'UPAVP') on 26.08.1992 for acquisition of land in dispute. There against, plaintiffs filed objections and hence land in question cannot be said to have been acquired by defendant-respondent.
5. Defendant-respondent clearly stated that land in question was already acquired by them and award was also given by Collector, whereafter compensation was paid and received by plaintiffs on 22nd March, 1992.
6. Trial court formulated following nine issues :
Þ1- D;k oknh] izfroknh ds eqdkcys lEifRr [kljk uEcj 580 @ 1 {ks=Qy 0&7&10 fLFkr lkfgckckn ijxuk yksuh rglhy o ftyk xkft;kckn o ml ij cus fuekZ.k e; e'khujh vkfn dk ekfyd] dkfct o nkf[ky gS\ "1. Whether the plaintiff, in comparison to the defendant, is owner having possession over the property in Khasra No. 580/1 measuring 0-7-10 situated at Sahibabad, Pragana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad and the construction erected thereon including machinery?"
2- D;k oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k izkIr ugha gS\ "2. Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff?"
3- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu dqN xyr gS rFkk vnk fd;k x;k U;k; 'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ "3. Whether the suit is wrongly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient?"
4- D;k okn /kkjk 34 o 41 fo'ks"k vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\ "4. Whether the suit is barred by Sections 34 and 41 of The Special Relief Act?"
5- D;k okn /kkjk 331 ;w0ih0 tSM0,0 ,DV ls ckf/kr gS\ "5. Whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act?"
6- D;k okn /kkjk 88 m0iz0 vkokl fodkl vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\ "6. Whether the suit is barred by Section 88 of The Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Act?"
7- D;k bl U;k;ky; dks okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gS\ "7. Whether the jurisdiction to hear the suit lies with this court?"
8- okn fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ "8. What relief is the plaintiff entitled to get?"
9- D;k izfroknh fo'ks"k gtkZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ß "9. Whether the defendant is entitled to special damages?"
(English Translation by the Court)
7. Issue no. 1 was answered against plaintiffs holding that construction has been raised over disputed land after its acquisition. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he owned property in dispute at the time of filing suit. Consequently, issue no. 2 was also answered against plaintiff. Issue no. 3 deals with valuation and was answered in favour of plaintiff, but issues no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were all answered against plaintiff and in favour of respondents. Consequently, suit was dismissed by court below, observing that in the matter of acquisition of land, validity thereof cannot be examined by Civil Court and suit is barred.
8. The only question which has been raised and need be considered is "Whether civil court was right in holding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter, when dispute of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is raised?
9. Sri B.B.Paul, learned counsel for appellants faily stated that this question is now concluded in Laxmi Chand and Others Vs. Gram Panchayat Kararia and Others [AIR (1996) SC 523], wherein Apex Court, in paragraph no. 3, has said :
"It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The Civil Court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional Courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the Civil Court."
10. Again, same question has been answered in Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S. Narayan [AIR (2006) SC 3379], wherein Apex Court reiterated its view and relying on earlier decision in Laxmi Chand and Others Vs. Gram Panchayat Kararia and Others (Supra), held that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
11. Therefore, aforesaid question is answered against plaintiffs-appellants and in favour of defendant. Judgment of court below therefore, cannot be said to be faulty in any manner.
12. Appeal has no merit. Dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.5.2015 A. Verma Court No. - 34 Impleadment Application No. 313928 of 2014 IN Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 786 of 2004 Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra & Another Respondent :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Counsel for Appellant :- P.K.Singhal,A.P. Paul,B.B. Paul,P.K.S.Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.P. Srivastava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Counsel for appellants-applicants submit that he does not want to press this application.
2. Application is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 21.5.2015 A. Verma