( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2009 Dropadibai @ Akkabai Narsingrao More through L.Rs. Vidyawati Ramchandra More & others APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, advocate for the appellants. Mrs. V.A. More, AGP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 7th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.P. 2. The Plaintiffs’ suit for ownership and perpetual injunction (R.C.S. No. 449/2004) was dismissed. The first Appellate Court confirmed the decree while deciding the appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 58/2008. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) alleging that they are owners and possessors of land bearing Gat No. 24 and though the same was not subject matter of acquisition, yet, their ( 2 ) lawful possession was being obstructed by the respondents (defendants). The defendants asserted that the suit land was acquired for the purpose of “Tawarja Project”. It was alleged that compensation was worked out and was to be paid to owner by name Shahu as per the record and the necessary steps were taken. 3. What appears from the findings of the Courts below is that in earlier suit bearing R.C.S. No. 266/1967, the acquired land was allotted to the share of said Shahu, who was one of the sons of the appellant No. 1. It appears that notice was given to said Shahu, but he was not alive at the relevant time. The question whether acquisition could be validly effected or not is outside the realm of the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The Apex Court in “Laxmi Chand and others v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others” (AIR 1996 S.C. 523), held that jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in respect of the issues concerning the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. It has been held that the Land Acquisition Act is self-contend Code and the grievances of the parties are required to be sorted out under the provisions of the said Act. So, if the plaintiffs (appellants) have any grievance, then they are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings before the competent officer under the Land Acquisition Act. It appears from the observations of the trial Court that the husband of the appellant No. 1 had ( 3 ) submitted an application to the Land Acquisition Officer for recording her name instead of deceased Shahu and that application was granted. In other words, acquisition of the land in question was within knowledge of the deceased Plaintiff No. 1 Dropadabai. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the first Appellate Court has rendered rather a cryptic judgement. However, merely on such ground, this second appeal need not be entertained. In this view of the matter, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa171-09