(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant. Heard Sri R. A. Kulkarni, holding brief for Sri R. S. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandrashekar, holding brief for Sri P. Krishnappa, learned counsel for second respondent and Sri M. Ramaiah, learned government Advocate for first respondent.
(2.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 12-2-1997 delivered in o. s. No. 4477 of 1989 by ii additional city civil judge, wherein the trial court has decreed the plaintiffs suit declaring the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner of the land in question and declaring the preliminary and final notification dated 2-2-1989 under Land Acquisition Act read with bda act to be illegal and inoperative. According to the trial court, the final notification has been issued almost after a period of more than 10 years from issuance of the preliminary notification and so it held both the notifications to be bad and inoperative and granted decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 i. e. , appellant and respondent 1, from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, over the suit property.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that no suit could be filed nor be entertained by the civil court challenging the preliminary and final notifications issued under the Provisions of the Bangalore development authority act read with Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has answered issue No. 7 in favour of the plaintiff upon illegal and wrongful basis. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 9 of the CPC provides that all suits regarding civil rights are no doubt maintainable unless the cognisance thereof is barred either expressly or by necessary implication. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of state of Bihar dhirendra kumar and others, and in Laxmi Chand and others v Gram Panchayat, kararia and others, has held that the civil court's jurisdiction is barred by necessary implication. Learned counsel contended that the trial court has gpne into the question whether the 2nd notification under Section 6 read with Section 19 if has been issued after expiry of 10 or 11 years, is illegal and null and void and it opined that it is illegal as it has not been issued within the reasonable period and so the civil court has jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that this approach of the court was just like putting the cart before the horse, that it decided the matter and then it said about court's jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent contested this contention. He submitted that Section 64 of the Bangalore development authority act provides for a suit being filed against the persons under the act. He submitted that similar provision has been made in the Land Acquisition Act as well.