( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 415 OF 2006 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Appellants Through the Collector, Osmanabad. [Ori.def.Nos. 1 to 3] 2. The Dy. Engineer, Public Health Department, Ahmedpur. 3. The Dy. Collector, Udgir. (L.A.O.; Udgir) Versus Kaseemsaheb Mehboobsaheb .. Respondent since deceased through his L.Rs. [Ori. plaintiff] 1A. Khaum Sadik s/o. Kaseemsaheb, Age. 60 years, Occ. Retired Professor, R/o. Rajpur, Dist. Gulbarga (Karnataka) 1B. Abdul Alim s/o. Kaseemsaheb, Age. 42 years, Occ. R/o. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 1C. Sufiyabegam Usufsaheb, Age. 50 years, Occ. 1D. Khutirjbegam Alimoyoddin Age. 45 years. ( 2 ) Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri D.P. Bakshi, Advocate for appellant No.2. Shri K.S. Bhore, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1A to 1D. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 09.07.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard A.G.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for appellant State, Adv. Shri D.P. Bakshi for appellant No.2 and Shri K.S. Bhore for respondent Nos. 1A to 1D - who are legal representatives of sole respondent. This is stage of admission and with consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing, as question of tenability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit is raised. Therefore, this appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code? ( 3 ) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The original suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.349 of 1975 was decided by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur on 3rd January, 1994. He thereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of suit land land Survey No.37/2A, admeasuring 9 R of village Ahmedpur taken up by defendant No. 3-Dy. Collector, Udgir are null and void being in contravention of Section 4 (1), 5(A) and 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal against the same filed by original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1994 came to be dismissed by the Jt. District Judge, Latur, by its order dated 18th October, 1999. 3. The plaintiff’s case as narrated by the Trial Court may be summarized as follows:- . The plaintiff is owner of Survey No.37/2A situated at Ahmedpur. The land is admeasuring 6 Acres 8 Gunthas. Out of it 9 Gunthas portion was acquired by the appellants for construction of water reservoir. Later on 10 Gunthas portion from same Survey number was acquired for Vaternery Dispensary. Notification in respect of 9 R land was issued ( 4 ) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 19.12.1974. The plaintiff took objection to the same. However, the possession was taken over and delivered to original defendant No.2, who is present appellant No.2. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 and notice under Section 9 were issued. It is stated that notification under Section 6 was also illegal and issued without following necessary procedure. The plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who are present appellants. It is stated that action of taking acquired land was illegal and invalid as there was non-compliance of various provisions of law. With these averments the suit was filed for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. The learned Civil Judge granted the decree for declaration and rejected the prayers for mandatory injunction & possession. 4. The learned A.G.P. For appellant No.1 relied upon case of Laxmi Chand and others V/s. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and ors., AIR 1996 S.C.523. In that case notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land for construction of school was published on 16th April, 1969. Validity thereof was challenged by filing Writ Petition in ( 5 ) the High Court. Same came to be dismissed. Thereafter award under Section 11 came to be passed and validity of acquisition of award was challenged by filing a Civil Suit for declaration that the land could not be acquired. It is also said that since the acquisition proceedings were dropped, the land acquisition officer is devoid of power to reopen the same at the behest of the Gram Panchayat. The Supreme Court has discussed various provisions in para 2 and and in para 3 the following observations are made:- “3. 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 cognisance 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.” 5. In view of clear position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in my opinion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the Second appeal is allowed. The judgment ( 6 ) and decree passed by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. sd/- [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa415.06 “AUTHENTICATED COPY” [S.N. KULKARNI] P.A. To Hon’ble Judge