CM No.4152-C of 2010 in/and - 1 - RSA No.697 of 1991 ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4152-C of 2010 in/and RSA No.697 of 1991 Date of decision:20.09.2010. Fateh (dead) through his Legal Representatives ...Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the applicants in CM No.4152-C of 2010. Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal was admitted on 19.07.1991. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to challenge acquisition proceedings and the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the Act”] as illegal, null and void alleging that his land measuring 8 Kanals 2 Marlas comprising in Khewat No.140, Khata No.215, Rectangle No.49, Killa No.6min and 7 min, situated in village Sandeel was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for allotment of residential plots to landless/homeless Harijans, members of backward classes and economically weaker persons in the village. The Land Acquisition Collector [for short “the Collector”] gave his award under CM No.4152-C of 2010 in/and - 2 - RSA No.697 of 1991 ***** Section 11 of the Act on 27.03.1984. The plaintiff challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that no notice was given to him of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are illegal. The suit has been dismissed by the Courts below. During the pendency of the present appeal, CM No.4152-C of 2010 is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] by the persons who have been allotted 3 Marlas plot each out of the acquired land, which includes the land of the appellant, claiming themselves to be necessary and proper parties as they would be ultimately affected by the result of the appeal. It is alleged in the application that Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter in controversy. Notice in the application was issued. On the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, namely, the appellant, respondents and the applicants in the CM No.4152-C of 2010, the main appeal itself, which though has not been listed for regular hearing, is taken up for hearing as counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit is maintainable and the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants is patently erroneous. Hence, the question arises for consideration in the appeal by itself is as to “whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector could be challenged by way of a civil suit.” In order to support his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court and two Single Bench judgments of the other High Court, namely, State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others, 1995(3) RRR 539 (SC), Ganpatibai and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 60 (SC), Hari Prasanna Acharjee Vs. State of Tripura and another, 2003(1) All India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases 556 (Gauhati High Court) and The State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Rajamanickam, 2001(1) LACC 146 (Madras High Court). CM No.4152-C of 2010 in/and - 3 - RSA No.697 of 1991 ***** On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that acquisition of the land without notice is a civil wrong for which only the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to challenge the validity of the notification. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others (supra) had observed that the Act is a complete Code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose and by necessary implication the power of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the case stands excluded and as such Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or legality of notification under Section 4 or declaration under Section 6 of the Act except by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Ganpatibai and another Vs. State of M.P. and others (supra), similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court while relying upon the decision in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others (supra) and the judgment has been then followed by the other High Courts. Thus, it is well settled now that the validity of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and all the proceedings arising therefrom cannot be challenged by way of a Civil Suit. The only remedy is to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid discussion, besides allowing CM No.4152-C of 2010 for impleading the applicants in the array of respondents, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. September 20, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE