SRI K.N. ANANDARAMA REDDY AND ORS. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NOW CALLED AS BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Court of the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH -5) in O.S. No. 86/2004. The advertence to the facts of the case may not be necessary, as the appeal is being disposed of based on a question of law.

(2.) THE suit schedule property measuring 1.14 acres forms part of the land at Sy. No. 83/3 of Madivala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (presently situated in B.T.M. layout II Stage). The entire land at Sy. No. 83/3 was acquired for the purpose and benefit of Bangalore Development Authority ('B.D.A.' for short) vide preliminary notification, dated 19.09.1977 and final notification, dated 07.02.1978. As per the notification issued under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, B.D.A. took possession of the suit schedule property on 20.1.1983. It is trite that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and the cognizance of the suit of civil nature is impliedly barred. The civil court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to try any dispute in respect of the acquired land. The only right that an aggrieved person can exercise is to approach the constitutional courts -High Court and the Supreme Court under the plenary power conferred by Articles 226 and 136 respectively of the Constitution of India. In saying so, I am fortified by the Apex Court's judgments in the case of Laxmi Chand and Others v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and Others reported in : (1996) 7 SCC 218 and State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and Others reported in : (1995) 4 SCC 229. The consistent view is reiterated in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another v. Brijesh Reddy and Another reported in : (2013) 3 SCC 66. It has this to say in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of its judgment:

(3.) IN view of the declaration of the legal position by the Apex Court in the afore -mentioned cases, I hold that the instant suit itself is not maintainable at all. The dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is upheld for the said additional reason.