1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 827 of 2003 Smt.Vithabai Govind Gawate (Since deceased through her LR's) Shri Narayan Govind Gawate .. Appellant V/s. State of Maharasthra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Abhijeet Khandarkar i/b. Mr.S.M.Oak for the Appellant. Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for State. Ms.Anulata Saundankar i/b.Ms.Garu Godse for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. The above Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 11th December, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane 2 and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 1997 by Judgment and order dated 9th March, 2001. Both the courts have concurrently held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff for assailing the Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds and further for injunction restraining the State Government from proceeding further pursuant to the said Award came to be dismissed on the ground that the suit filed for the said reliefs was not maintainable in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996, Supreme Court page 523 in the matter of Laxmi Chand and Ors. V/s.Gram Panchayat Kararia & Ors. The relavent excerpt from the said Judgment is quoted herein in below : “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 cognizance 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 3 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 extra ordinary power, Barring thereof there is no power to the Civil Court.” 2. In view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court Supra the challenge raised in the Second Appeal is misconceived and does not involve any substantial question of law. 3. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J.]