VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant Shri S. Shaker Shetty.

(2.) THIS appeal coming on for admission, it was mentioned by Shri Shetty that two other appeals of a similar nature have been admitted by this Court. Since, at first blush it was felt that the appeal was not maintainable as it arises out of a judgment challenging the alleged interference by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA', for brevity) in respect of the suit schedule property, the suit had been filed. Therefore, the other two appeals which were admitted, are also listed at the instance of this Court, for re -consideration, since it is the settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & Another v. Brijesh Reddy and Another' ( : (2013)3 SCC 66), wherein it is laid down that where there is compulsory acquisition of land, a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or illegality of the said proceedings and all subsequent proceedings thereto, except the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the Civil Court is de -void of jurisdiction to give a declaration or even grant a bare injunction on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right available to the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court as already stated, or the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the self -imposed restrictions on the exercise of such extraordinary power.

(3.) RELYING on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others', ( : (2011) 3 SCC 139), the learned counsel would draw attention to the relevant portion where the interpretation of the scope of Sections 27 and 36 of the BDA Act is discussed at paragraphs 38 and 39, as follows: