IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.305/2006 Magraj & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. 03.01.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Bipin Gupta for the appellants. Shri G.C. Garg, for the respondent Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned trial court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence despite several opportunities having been provided in that behalf. In appeal the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff appellant by the impugned judgment dated 10.2.2006. The learned appellate court took note of the fact that the land in dispute for which the plaintiff claims that he is in possession and which possession the appellant seeks to protect was the subject matter of acquisition by the respondent and award dated 15.1.1994 has already been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of the provisions the Land Acquisition Act 1894. On the aforesaid objection being raised before the appellate court the plaintiff appellant sought to raise the ground that the award dated 15.1.1994 be declared to be in- operative and void. Learned appellate court after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yamuna Nagar Trust Vs. Khaivati Lal dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below ought to have remanded the case to the learned trial court to afford an opportunity to the appellant to lead the evidence which was wrongly closed. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the land has already been acquired and award has been passed as early as on 15.1.1994 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the learned trial court for affording an opportunity to the plaintiff appellant to lead evidence in that behalf when the civil court has no jurisdiction to set aside the award and the land stands acquired and the award passed on 15.1.1994. Consequently, this second appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. In view of the dismissal of the appeal the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and application under Section 151 CPC also stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS