Holding

The Land Acquisition Officer retains jurisdiction to proceed with inquiry and make an award under Section 11 despite earlier cessation, and civil courts lack jurisdiction to declare the acquisition process invalid; remedies lie within the Act or constitutional courts.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land by a Gram Panchayat for a school, arguing that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) had lost jurisdiction after initially dropping the proceedings due to the Panchayat’s lack of funds. The Supreme Court held that the LAO retained power to reopen the inquiry and make an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because no formal withdrawal under Section 48(1) was made and the Panchayat later decided to proceed. The Court further ruled that civil courts lack jurisdiction to declare the acquisition process invalid; aggrieved parties must use the remedies provided in the Act (reference under Section 18, appeal under Section 54) or approach constitutional courts under Articles 226 and 136. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, upholding the award and the acquisition.

Issues considered

Whether the Land Acquisition Officer retains jurisdiction to reopen acquisition proceedings and make an award under Section 11 after previously dropping them due to the Gram Panchayat’s lack of funds.
Whether the Gram Panchayat’s lack of funds divests the Land Acquisition Officer of his power to proceed with acquisition.
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking declaration of invalidity of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the absence of a notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing the acquisition means the acquisition remains in force.
Whether the remedies provided under the Act (Section 18 reference and Section 54 appeal) are exclusive, thereby limiting civil court jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 9
Constitution of Indias. 136, s. 226
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 4(1), s. 48(1), s. 54, s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitionjurisdictioncivil courtspecial leave petitionSection 48Section 11public purposeGram Panchayatlack of fundsawarddeclarationconstitutional remedy

Judgment

A LAXMI CHAND & ORS. .,........
\".

GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARARIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 6, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, .I.I.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Ss.4(1), 6, 11, 48(1)-Land acquisition pmceedings-Validity of-
C Jwisdiction of Civil Cowt to give declaration on-Acquisition of land for
Gram Panchayat-Gram Panchayat initially expressed lack of funds but later
proceeded with acquisition-No notification under S.48( 1) withdrawing ac-
quisition issued-Award made-Acquisition and award challenged before
Civil Court-Held, Civil Cowt devoid of jwisdiction to give declaration on
validity of procedure contemplated under the Act-Dissatisfied claimants to
D seek remedies pmvided under the Act or the Constinttion of b1dia-Lack of
funds with Gram Pancl1ilyat does not divest Land Acquisition Officer of
jwisdiction to proceed with inquiry under S.11 and to make award.

The appellant land owners filed a writ petition before the High Court
E challenging the notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
acquiring their lands. The writ petition was dismissed and the Land
Acquisition Officer made an award. The land owners filed a civil suit
challenging the validity of the acquisition and the award on the ground
that the Land Acquisition Officer having once dropped the acquisition
proceedings was devoid of po\\-'er to reopen the same at the behest of the
F Gram Panchayat and make the award under S.11 of the Act. The Civil
Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The land owners' appeal as
well as their Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by the High Court.
Aggrieved, the land owners filed the petition for special leave.

G Dismissing the petitrnn, this Court

HELD : 1. Lack of funds with the Gram Panchayat does not divest the
Land Acquisition Officer of his power and jurisdiction to proceed with the
em1uiry under S.11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to make the award
thereunder. Though the Gram Panchayat had initially expressed about its
H lack of funds, soon therealler it came forward to proceed with the ac<1uisi-
774
LAXMI CHAND v. URAM PAN CHAYAT 775

- lion. Moreover, no notification under sub-section(!) of S.48 of the Act
\\'ithclra\\·ing the acquisition of land was published in the Gazette. The Civil
Court as \Yell as the 1-Iigh Court con1mitted no error of la\\' \\'arranting
A

interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [777-E, 776-F]

2.1. The scheme of the Land Ac'luisition Act is complete in itself and
thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases B
arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. A dissatis-
fieo claimant is provided \11th the remedy of reference under S.18 and a
further appeal under S.54 oftbe Act. The Civil Court is devoid of jurisdic-
tion to give declaration on invalidity of the procedure contemplated under
the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the C
constitutional Courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under
their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution respec-
tively with self~imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary
power. [777-C-D]

2.2. In the instant case, the High Court had upheld the validity of D
the notification under S.4(1) and the declaration under S.6 of the Act. The
special leave petition against the order of the High Court determining the
market value of the land, trees and buildings thereon was dismissed by
this Court. [776-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) E
No. 23740 of 1995.

From the .Judgment and Order dated 10.1.94 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in LP.A. No. l of 1994.

S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and Baldev K. Satija for the Appellants. F

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, "the Act") acquiring land for construction of the school for
public purpose, was published on April 16, 1969. Validity thereof was G
challenged in C.M.P. No. 60 of 196'f. The High Court by its order dated
January 23,1970 dismissed the writ petition. Award under Section 11 was
made on September 24, 1974. Validity of the acquisition and of the award
was challenged by filing a civil suit of January 3, 1975 for a declaration that
the land could not be acquired. The acquisition proceedings having been H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A once dropped by the Land Acquisition Officer by his proceedings dated
July 13, 1973, he was devoid of power to reopen the same at the behest of
the Gram Panchayat. The Civil Court on a preliminary issue held that the
suit was not maintainable. The learned single Judge by his judgment and
order dated November 23, 1993 upheld the decision of the Civil Court. The
Division Bench in LP.A. NO. 1 of 1994 by its decision dated January 1,
B
1994 dismissed the same. Thus this special leave petition.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the acquisition proceedings having been dropped by the Land Acquisition
Officer, he had ·no jurisdiction or power to reopen the same and to make
.
c the award under Section 11 of the Act. The award is, therefore, clearly
illegal for want of jurisdiction. It would appear that after the High Court
had upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the
declaration under Section 6, an application was filed in the High Court for
claiming value of the property in which the high Court determined market
D value at Rs. 7,000 per acre and also other values of the trees and buildings
etc. and the application was dismissed. The order dated January 23, 1970
was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition. While the
enquiry was in progress, it would appear that the Gram Panchayat had
stated before the Land Acquisition Officer that it had no funds so as to
proceed with the award and requested him to drop the proceedings. On
E that basis, report was submitted to the Government and the Land Acquisi-
tion Officer had stopped further action. The Government did not accede
to the request. No notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the
Act withdrawing acquisition of land, possession of which had not been
taken, was published in the Gazette. Admittedly, the Government thereby
F had neither withdrawn from the acquisition nor published the same in the
Gazette. Therefore, the mere fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had
stopped further action to make the award did not divest him of his power
and jurisdiction to make the award. 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 cognisance of a suit of civil nature may either
G expressly or impliedly be barred. The procedure contemplated under the
Act is a special procedure envisaged to effectuate public purpose, compul-
sorily 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
H conclusiveness to the public purpose and the extent of the land mentioned
LAXMI CHANDv. GRAM PANCHAYAT 777

therein. The award should be made under Section 11 as envisaged there- A
under. 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 pos-
session of the land, procedure contemplated under Section 48 requires to
be adhered lo. If possession is taken it stands vested under Section 16 in
B
the Stale with absolute title free from all encumbrances and the Govern-
ment has no power to \vithdraw from acquisition.

- 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 cognisance of the
cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The C
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 Courts, viz., the
High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under
Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restriction on their
. exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the D
Civil Court.

It is true that the Gram Panchayat had initially expressed about its
lack of funds but soon thereafter it came forward to proceed with the
acquisition and thus lack of funds with the Gram Panchayat does not divest
E
the power and jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with
the enquiry under Section 11 and to make the award thereunder. The Land
Acquisition Officer does not lack jurisdiction or power to make the award.
The Civil Court as well as the High Court thereby committed no error of
Jaw warranting our interference.
F
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

R.P. Petition dismissed.