S.P. Subramanya
Shetty & Ors Vs. K.S.R.T.C. & Ors [1997] INSC 347 (26 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court on January 20, 1997 in CRP No. 4097/96.
The
admitted facts are that the acquisition of the petitioners' land has become
final. Admittedly notification under section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, the `Act') was issued. The petitioners had challenged the
notification in the year 1988. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on January 17,1990. The special leave petition filed
by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court on November 21, 1994.
It is
the case of the petitioner that he made a representation to denotify the part
of the land on the ground that he was willing to give 5 out of 11 cents, free
of cost. He claims that the secretary had examined the matter and favourably
recommended for consideration. Since they were not been considered, he filed
the civil suit for an injunction for restraining them from interfering with his
possession. The District Judge vacated the interim injunction granted by the
trial court and in the revision the High Court has dismissed it. Thus, this
special leave petition.
In
view of the settled legal position that the notification had become final and
the proceedings had attained finality, the civil suit was not maintainable.
This Court has repeatedly held that a civil suit relating to acquisition
proceedings is not maintainable and by implication, cognizance under section 9,
CPC, is barred. The Court cannot issue mandatory injunction against the state
to denotify the acquisition under section 48. Therefore, the question of
granting an injunction against the authority;
from
proceedings in accordance with the law does not arise.
The
High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to grant injunction. The Court
cannot compel the Government to withdraw the notification under section 4(1) of
the Act. It is for the Government to consider the same on merits and it keeping
in mind subservience of public interest. In view of the fact that notification
was upheld by this Court and has become final, the Government cannot retract
from the steps taken.
The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
