Holding

Civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of acquisition notifications; such challenges must be brought before a High Court under Article 226, and the acquisition remains valid despite the plaintiffs not receiving notice.

Summary

The respondents K.S. Narayan purchased land in 1985 after the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had issued a notification for acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. They filed civil suits seeking injunctions against the BDA, claiming that no notice under Section 17(5) of the Act had been served to them and that the acquisition was therefore invalid. The trial court dismissed the suits, holding that civil courts cannot question the validity of acquisition proceedings, but the Karnataka High Court reversed, declaring the acquisition invalid for lack of notice. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the respondents could not have been served notice because their names were not on the assessment list at the time of the notification, and that challenges to the validity of acquisition notifications must be pursued in writ jurisdiction, not civil suits. Consequently, the High Court's decree was set aside and the trial court's dismissal affirmed. The appeals were allowed in favour of the BDA.

Issues considered

The validity of acquisition proceedings when notice under Section 17(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act was not served to a purchaser who acquired the land after the notification.
Whether a civil suit can be maintained to challenge the validity of acquisition notifications under the Bangalore Development Authority Act and the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the High Court erred in holding the acquisition proceedings invalid and granting relief to the plaintiffs.

Legislation cited

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976s. 17, s. 19
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 96
Constitution of Indias. 226
Land Acquisition Acts. 30, s. 31, s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionBangalore Development Authority ActNotice under Section 17Civil suit jurisdictionValidity of acquisitionWrit jurisdictionArticle 226CPC Section 96Property rights

Judgment

A COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
K.S. NARAYAN

OCTOBER 11. 1006

B [G.P. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA. JJ.)

Land Acquisition Act; Ss.4. 6, 30 and 31/Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976; Ss. 17 and 19:

C Acquisition proceedings-Challenged on grounds that neither notice
served to owners of the property in question nor compensation awarded-
Trial Court decreed all the suits-High Court granting liberty to the plaintiffs
to amend the petitions since neither possession/ownership of the properties in
question was established by the plaintiffs nor any relief was claimed by them
D in the petitions-Remitted the matter to trial Court for decision afresh-Trial
Court dismissed the amended petitions holding that validity of acquisition
proceedings cannot be questioned before a Civil Court-Appeal against allowed
by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Property in question purchased by the
plaintiffs after issuance of Notification for acquisition by the authorities-
Since the scheduled property did not appear in the assessment list/revenue
E records of the authorities concerned, Notices could not be served to the
plaintiffs-Thus, High Court erred in holding the acquisition proceedings
invalid for not serving the Notice-The question of validity of Land Acquisition
Notification and its effect could only be examined in a writ proceeding by the
High Court and not by the Civil Court-Hence, order passed by the High
F Court is set aside and the one passed by the trial Court affirmed-Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 96-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226.

The plaintiff-respondent purchased the property in dispute by means
of a registered sale deed. The plaintiff applied for mutation entries and
the same was granted by the authorities in his favour. Allegedly, the
G property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as
neither notice of acquisition had been received by the plaintiff nor any
award for compensation regarding the said property was received by him.
Though, the appellant-authority had no right, title or interest over the
property but it was fryfn"g to dispossess the respondent on the ground of

H 186
COMMR .. BANGALORE DEVEWPMENT AUll{ORITY r. K.S. NARA YAN J87
. . . . . . . . ·. . I ..
alleged acquisition.
.
Aggrieved,
.
he filed a·- Suit in the Civil Court praying\
. I
A
for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant-Authority and
others restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment
of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure
situate thereon. Nine other suits on similar issue were also filed. The trial
Court decreed all the ten suits. The appeals preferred by the Authority
were allowed by the High Court granting liberty to the plaintiffs to apply B
for amendment of the plaint as plaintifrs did not claim any relief, and also
remitting the matter to trial Court for decision afresh. The plaintiffs •
applied for amendment ~fthe plaint. Amended petitions were considered.
by the trial Court. Trial Court dismissed the petitions holding that validity
or othenvise of the acquisition proceedings cannot be questioned before C
the CivUCourt. Pl~intiffs preferred appeals before the High Court under
Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code. High Court held the acquisition
proceedings invalid and passed a decree for declaration of title and also
for possession in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court D
HELD: I.I. In fact the plaintiffs in all the ten suits purchased the
plaint scheduled property some time in the year 1985. The date of purchase
of plaint scheduled property by the plaintiffs in all the ten suits is
mentioned in the first judgment of the High Court remanding the matter
to the trial Court. Thus, there was no occasion for serving any notice upon E
_the plaintiffs as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Bangalore .
Development Authority Act as their names could not have appeared in ·
the assessment list of the Local Authority or in the land revenue register
at the relevant time. Therefore, the whole basis on which the High Court
held the acquisition proceedings to be invalid is erroneous and cannot be F
sustained. [194-B, CJ ·

/
1.2. The question, whether.
. a civil suit is maintainable
.
to challenge
the acquisition proceedings, is no longer res integra.The Civil Court cannot.
go into the question of validity or otherwi.se of the notifications issued
under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. [194-DI G
State ofBihar v. Dhirendra Kumar, [19951 4 SCC 229 and laxmi Chand
v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia, [199617SCC218, relied on.
1.3. The view taken by the High Court is wholly erroneous. It is not
the <ase of the plaintiffs that the plaint soheduled property iS not covered H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A by the notification issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development
Authority Act. As a matter of fact, there is no dispute that the land
regarding which the suits have been filed is covered by the Notification.
(196-E[

1.4'. The ground for assailing the· Notification, namely, that notice
B under sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act was not served upon the
plaintiffs and its effect could only be examined in a writ petition filed under •
· Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court and not by the Civil .
Court. The j~dgments and orders passed by the High Court are, therefore,
clearly illegal, hence set aside. The decrees passed by the trial Court
C dismissing the suits are affirmed. [196-G, H; 197-A, Bl
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8307 of2002.
. . ., .
·From the Judgment and final Order dated 14\26.6.2001. of the High
Court of Kamataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 406 of 2001.
' ·-•'

D WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 831012002, 8308/2002, 8315/2002, 831112002, 83121
2002, 831412002, 83.13/2002 and 830912002 •

Altaf Ahmed, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar for
E . the Appellant. . . •.

S.N. Bhat, D.P. Cbatiirvedi, N.P.S. Panwar and Sheela Goel for the .
Respondent.
' .
Ex-Parle (C.'A. No. 8315/2002)
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MATHUR, J: I. The .issue involved in these appeals, by special
leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common
/' order. For the sake of convenience facts of Civil Appeal 8307 of 2002,
G which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001
passed by Kamataka High Court in R.F.A. No. 406 of2001, shall be stated.

2-3. The respondent K.S. Narayan filed Original Suit No: 5371of1989
in the court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent
•
injunction be passed against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority,
H their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs
COMMR .. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY r. K.S. NARA YAN [G.P. MA TIJUR . .I.] J 89
•
possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from A
demolishing any structure situate thereon. The case of the plaintiff in brief
is as follows. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing No. 46,
situated in Banasawadi village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
from S. Narayana Gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985.
The erstwhile owners of the property had obtained conversion certificate
from the Tehsildar and the property is situated in a lay out which is properly B
approved by obtaining conversion for non-agricultural use from the competent
authority. The plaintiff applied for mutation entries and the same was granted
in his favour. The property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition
proceedings as neither notice of acquisition had been received nor any award
regarding the said property had been passed. The defendant had no right, C
title or interest over the property but it was trying to dispossess the plaintiff
from the same on the ground of alleged acquisition. The plaintiff issued a
notice to the defendant on I 1.7.1989 calling upon it not to interfere with his
possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute but no reply had been
received. It was pleaded that the cause of action to file the suit arose on
11. 7.1989, the date of the notice and also when the defendant tried to dispossess D
the plaintiff from the disputed property.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant Bangalore Development
Authority on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff was not the owner of the
property in dispute. S. Narayana Gowda, who is alleged to have executed the E
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 17.6.1985, had no right, title or interest
over the property in dispute and he could not have conveyed any title to the
plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the disputed land had been acquired by
the Bangalore Development Authority after issuing preliminary and final
notifications in accordance with Bangalore Development Authority Act and
the possession had also been taken over and thereafter it was handed over to F
the Engineering Section on 22.6.1988 after completion of all formalities.
The award for the land acquired had already been made and the compensation
amount had been deposited in civil court under Sections 30 and 31 (2) of the
Land Acquisition Act. It was specifically pleaded that it was the defendant
Bangalore Development Authority which was in possession of the plaint G
scheduled property on the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit for
injunction filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and was liable to be
dismissed.

5. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of
their case before the trial court. The learned Xlll Additional City Civil H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Judge. Bangalore, decreed all the ten suits by the judgment and decree dated
30.1.1991. The Bangalore Development Authority, the appellant herein,
preferred ten appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial court before
the Karnataka High Court. The High Court held that though the plaintiffs
had filed the suit claiming to have title and possession over the property in
dispute but in fact their possession over the plaint scheduled property on the
B date of the suit was not established. The plaintiffs had not claimed any relief
for delivery of possession over the property. The High Court accordingly
allowed the appeal, set aside judgment and decree of the trial court and
remanded the suit for fresh decision with liberty to the plaintiffs to apply for
amendment of the plaint for which purpose one month time was granted. It
C was further mentioned in the order that if the plaintiffs did not apply for
amendment within one month the trial court shall dismiss the suit. However,
if the plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint, the defendant in each
suit shall be given opportunity of filing further written statement and thereafter
the suit shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

D 6. After remand of the suit to the trial court the plaintiffs applied for
amendment of the plaint. In the amendment application it was pleaded that
the plaintiffs were owner in possession of the property but they were
dispossessed on 22.6.1988. It was also pleaded that the defendant had
dispossessed the plaintiffs from the plaint scheduled property without taking
E proceedings for acquisition of the land and as such their dispossession was
wholly illegal. The relief clause was also amended and it was prayed that it
may be declared that the plaintiffs are owner of the property and a decree for
possession be passed in their favour directing the defendant to deliver back
the possession of the plaint scheduled property to them. The amendment
application was filed on 31.8.2000. The defendant Bangalore Development
F Authority filed an amended written statement and the principal pleas taken
therein were that the suit was barred by limitation and the land in dispute
having been validly acquired and possession having been taken over, the suit
was liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the defendant was in
possession and enjoyment of the property since 22.6.1988 and the predecessors
G of the plaintiffs had also taken part in proceedings for determination of
compensation and making of award before the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. After the pleadings had been amended the suits were tried by learned
XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The parties did
not adduce any further evidence and relied upon the evidence which had
been adduced earlier. The trial court, relying upon the decision of this Court
H in Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia, ( 1996] 7 SCC 218, held that
COMMR., BANGALOREDEVELOPMENT AUTllORITI° i: K.S. NARAYAN [G.P. MATHUR. l.J 19 J

validity or otherwise of the acquisition proceedings cannot be questioned A
before the civil court and accordingly dismissed the suits.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the
plaintiffs preferred appeals before the High Cou11 under Section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code. The High Court held that the names of the plaintiffs who
were the lawful owners of plaint scheduled property were not at all notified B
and as two basic requirements of a valid acquisition of property were not
satisfied, the acquisition was not binding upon the owners of the property. It
was held that plaintiffs were not covered by the notification which had been
issued regarding acquisition of the property and, therefore, the civil court was
competent to entertain the suit. After recording a finding that no notice had C
been served upon the plaintiffs, it was held that the acquisition proceedings
were invalid. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the suits were
decreed as prayed. Thus a decree for declaration of title and also for possession
was passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. We have heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the D
appellants and Mr. S.N. Bhat learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The acquisition proceedings in question had been taken under the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). The relevant provisions regarding acquisition are Sections 17 and 19
of the Act, which are being reproduced below: - E
"17. Procedure on completion of scheme.-{!) When a development
scheme has been prepared, the authority shall draw up a notification
stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the
area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the
scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying F
the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard
to which a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable
hours.

(2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the corporation
which shall, within Thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, G
forward to the authority for transmission to the Government as
hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may
think fit to make with regard to the scheme.

(3) The authority shall also cause a copy of the said notification to H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A be published in the Official Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous
pa11 of its own office, the Deputy Commissioner's Office, the Office
of the Corporation and in such other places as the authority may
consider necessary.

(4) If no representation is received from the corporation within the
B time specified in sub-section (2), the concurrence of the corporation
to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given.

(5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such
notification is published in the Official Gazette the authority shall
serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment
c list of the Local Authority or in the land revenue register as being
primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on
any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing
the scheme or in regard to which the authority proposes to recover
betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within Thirty
days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition
D of the bu ii ding or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not
be made.

(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order of the Commissioner
and shall be served.
E (a) by personal delivery of if such person is_ absent or cannot be
found, on his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by leaving
the same on the land or the building; or
(b) by leaving the same at the usual or last known place of abode or
business of such person; or
F
(c) by registered post addresses to the usual or last known place of
above or business of such person.
19. Upon sanction, declaration to be published giving particulars of
land to be acquired.-(1) Upon sanction of the scheme, the
Government shall publish in the Official Gazette declaration stating
G the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by
the authority for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public
purpose.

(2) The declaration shall state the limits within which the land proposed
H
COMMR., BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUIBORITY "· K.S. NARA YAN [G.P. MAIBUR,J.] 193

to be acquired is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its A
approximate area and the place where a plan of the land may be
inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is
needed for a public purpose and the authority shall, upon the
publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. B
(4) If at any time it appears to the authority that an improvement can
be made in any part of the scheme the authority may alter the scheme
for the said purpose and shall subject to the provisions of sub-
sections (5) and (6) forthwith proceed to execute the scheme as
altered. (;

(5) If the estimated cost of executing the scheme as altered exceeds,
by a greater sum than five per cent the estimated cost of executing
the scheme as sanctioned, the authority shall not, without the previous
sanction of the Government, proceed to execute the scheme as altered.
D
(6) If the scheme as altered involves the acquisition otherwise than
by agreement, of any land other than that specified in the scheduled
referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (I) of Section 18, the provisions
of Sections 17 and 18 and of sub-section (I) of this section shall apply
to the part of the scheme so altered in the same manner as if such
altered part were the scheme." E
I0. The provisions of Sections 17 and 19 are somewhat similar to the
provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-section (5)
of Section I 7 of the Act mandates that after the publication of the notification
in the Official Gazette the authority shall, during the period of next thirty days, F
serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list
of the Local Authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable
to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment of any building or land
which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to
which the authority proposes to recover betterment tax. The person on whom
the notice is served is entitled to raise objection regarding the proposed G
acquisition within thirty days.

I I. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section I 7 was
published on 26.5. I 984 and the notification under Section 19 was published
on 23. I 0.1986. The award was made on 26.5.1988 and thereafter possession
was taken over by the Bangalore Development Authority on 22.6.1988. The H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A High Court has observed that the plaintiff K.S. Narayan purchased the property
from Doddanna in the year 1964. This is clearly wrong as the specific case
of the plaintiff in paragraph 3 of the plaint is that he purchased the property
from S. Narayana Gowda on 17.6.1985. It is, therefore, obvious that the
plaintiff purchased the property more than one year after the notification
B under section 17 of the Act had been published. In fact the plaintiffs in all
the ten suits purchased the plaint scheduled property some time in the year
1985. The date of purchase of plaint scheduled property by the plaintiffs in
the ten suits is mentioned in the first judgment of the High Court remanding
the matter to the trial Court. Thus, there was no occasion for serving any
notice upon the plaintiffs as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the
C Act as their names could not have appeared in the assessment list of the
Local Authority or in the land revenue register at the relevant time. Therefore,
the whole basis on which the High Court held the acquisition proceedings
to be invalid is erroneous and cannot be sustained.

12. The other point which requires consideration is whether a civil suit
D is maintainable to challenge the acquisition proceedings. This question is no
longer res integra. In two decisions of this Court it has been clearly held that
the civil court cannot go into the question of validity or otherwise of the
notifications issued under Sections 4( 1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar. [1995] 4 SCC 229, it was held as under:-
E "3. The question is whether a civil suit is maintainable and whether
ad interim injunction could be issued where proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the notice issued under
Section 9 of the Act and delivered to the beneficiary. The provisions
of the Act are designed to acquire the land by the State exercising the
F power of eminent domain to serve the public purpose. The State is
enjoined to comply with statutory requirements contained in Section
4 and Section 6 of the Act by proper publication of notification and
declaration within limitation and procedural steps of publication in
papers and the local publication envisaged under the Act as amended
by Act 68 of 1984. In publication of the notifications and declaration
G under Section 6, the public purpose gets crystallized and becomes
conclusive. Thereafter, the State is entitled to authorize the Land
Acquisition Officer to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to
make the award. Section I IA now prescribes limitation to make the
award within 2 y_ears from the last date of publication envisaged under
Section 6 of the Act. In an appropriate case, where the Govt. needs
H
COMMR , BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUIBORITY 1•. K.S. NARAYAN (G.P. MAIBUR, l.] J95

possession of the land urgently, it would exercise the power under A
Section 17(4) of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section
5-A. Thereon, the State is entitled to issue notice to the parties under
Section 9 and on expiry of J5 days, the State is entitled to take
immediate possession even before the award could be made. Otherwise,
it would take possession after the award under Section J2. Thus, it B
could be seen that the Act is a complete code in itself and is meant
to serve public purpose. We are, therefore, inclined to think, as
presently advised, that by necessary implication the power of the civil
court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 of CPC stands
excluded, and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question
of the validity or legality of the notification under Section 4 and C
declaration under Section 6, except by the High Court in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the civil suit itself was not
maintainable."

Same view was taken in laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia, [1996]
7 sec 218 and the relevant portion of paras 2 and 3 of the report is being D
reproduced below:-

" .............................. It is seen that Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 gives jurisdiction to the Civil Court to try all civil suits, unless
barred. The cognizance of a suit of civil nature may either expressly
or impliedly be barred. The procedure contemplated under the Act is E
a special procedure envisaged to effectuate public purpose,
compulsorily acquiring the land for use of public purpose. The
notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the
Act are required to be published in the manner contemplated
thereunder. The inference gives conclusiveness to the public purpose F
and the extent of the land mentioned therein. The award should be
made under Section 11 as envisaged thereunder. The dissatisfied
claimant is provided with the remedy of reference under Section 18
and a further appeal under Section 54 of the Act. If the Government
intends to withdraw from the acquisition before taking possession of
the land, procedure contemplated under Section 48 requires to be G
adhered to. If possession is taken it stands vested under Section 16
in the State with absolute title free from all encumbrances and the
Government has no power to withdraw from acquisition.

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 cognizance H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SU?P. 7 S.C.R.

A 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 Coutts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court
under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively
B with self-imposed restriction on their exercise of extraordinary power.
Barring thereof, there is no power to the Civil Court."

13. It may be pointed out that the trial court dismissed the suit relying
upon the decision of this Court in laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia
C (supra). The High Court distinguished the aforesaid decision by observing as
under: -

"The ratio would be applicable when only the person aggrieved is
covered by the notification directly or as nominee. However, when a
person is not covered by the notification and without reference to him
D any notification issued would not be binding and in a such situation
it would not prevent the aggrieved person from approaching the civil
court. It is a salutary principle that the decree rendered in a civil
proceedings binds the parties to the proceedings and the persons
claiming through them. This principle would equally apply to the
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act."
E
14. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is wholly erroneous.
It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the plaint scheduled property is not
covered by the notification issued under Section 17 of the Act. As a matter
of fact, there is no dispute that the land regarding which the suits have been
filed is covered by the notification. The main ground on which the suits have
F been filed is that the notice as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of
the Act was not served upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are claiming title to
the property and are seeking the relief of possession on the ground that the
notification has been rendered invalid on account of non servir.e of notice
upon them under sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act. The plaintiffs are
G clearly assailing the validity of the acquisition proceedings. It is not their case
that the plaint scheduled property is outside the purview of the land regarding
which the notification under Section 17 had been issued. The ground for
assailing the notification, namely, that notice under sub-section (5) of Section
17 of the Act was not served upon the plaintiffs and its effect could only be
examined in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before
H
COMMR .. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1· K.S. NARAYAN [G.P. MA TIJUR. J.) J97

the High Court and not by the civil court. The judgments and decrees passed A
by the High Court are, therefore, clearly illegal and have to be set aside.

15. In the result the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The
judgments and decrees passed by the High Court, which are subject-matter
of challenge in the present appeals, are set aside and the decrees passed by
the trial court on 29.3.200 I dismissing the suits are affirmed. No order as to B
costs.

S.K.S. Appeals allowed.