... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.727 OF 2001 APPEAL NO.727 OF 2001 APPEAL NO.727 OF 2001 Shri Pravin K. Shah & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Shri Ram Singh for the Appellants. Shri S.N. Gawade, A.G.P. for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 31, 2006. : JULY 31, 2006. : JULY 31, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. After perusing the various orders which are passed in this Appeal, it is obvious that Appeal survives only so far as the Appellant No.8 is concerned. The order dated 02nd May, 2006 records that Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution as against the Appellant Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 14 and Appeal stands abated in so far as the Appellant No.12 is concerned. No proceedings are taken out for setting aside order dated 02nd May, 2006. 2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant No.8. The challenge in the suit is to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The substantive prayer is for declaration that the ... 2 ... acquisition proceedings are invalid and bad in law. The second prayer is for declaration regarding notice issued of the acquisition of the suit property. The other prayers are for consequential reliefs. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit where challenge was to acquisition proceedings. 3. It is well settled law which can be found in the decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court Page AIR 1995 Supreme Court Page AIR 1995 Supreme Court Page 1955 1955 1955 (State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar & Ors) and (State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar & Ors) and (State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar & Ors) and AIR AIR AIR 1999 Supreme Court Page 2076 (S.P.Subramanya 1999 Supreme Court Page 2076 (S.P.Subramanya 1999 Supreme Court Page 2076 (S.P.Subramanya Shetty Shetty Shetty & Ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport & Ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport & Ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation) Corporation) Corporation) that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in so far as the challenge to the acquisition proceedings is concerned. In view of the settled position of law, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order. Appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE