LAXMICHAND Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KARARIA CHAURAHA LASHKARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a letters patent appeal under cl.10 of the Letters Patent Appeal Rules, against the judgment and decree passed on 23-11-1993 in First Appeal No. 72 of 1991 by a learned Judge of this Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the suit land of the appellants cannot be acquired and the acquisition proceedings once dropped by the Land Acquisition Officer, for short, the LAO, vide order dt. 30-7-1973, could not be reopened at the instance of the Gram Panchayat for whom the land was acquired.

(2.) The notification for acquisition of the land under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act'), was issued on 16-4-1969. During the enquiry under S.11 of the Act, the Gram Panchayat stated before the LAO that the Gram Panchayat has no funds, therefore, the proceedings be dropped. On that, the LAO dropped the proceedings and ordered that the matter be referred for denotifying acquisition. After some time, Gram Panchayat made a prayer to the LAO that as the funds are now available, therefore, enquiry under S.11 be concluded and the award be passed. On that, the LAO concluded the enquiry and made an award on 22-1-1975. The appellants, instead of making a reference under S.18 of the Act, instituted a civil suit on 31st of Jan. 1975, for declaration that the LAO, once having dropped the proceedings had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings by reviewing the same as no power of review vested in him under the Act, hence the award is without jurisdiction and it be declared that the land so proposed to be acquired now, cannot be acquired. The trial Court raised preliminary issues about the maintainability of the suit. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit as not maintainable.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellants-plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that as prior to the dropping of the proceedings under S.11 of the Act, the plaintiffs challenged the notifications of acquisition by a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed and against the order of dismissal of writ, a special leave petition before the Supreme Court was also dismissed, therefore, in view of the dismissal of writ petition, the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned Single Judge also dismissed the suit holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as where statutory rights and liabilities have been created and jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Courts for deciding the matter in controversy, such jurisdiction is exclusive and cannot concurrently be exercised by civil courts.