BAHADUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 10th September, 2004 in Suit No. 73/04, holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the civil suit which is filed by the appellants and also that the suit is not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties filed before the learned Addl. District Judge, various issues, both on law and facts, were framed out of which two issues were considered as preliminary issues to the following effect: "1. Whether Civil Courts have jurisdiction? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable?" Both the aforesaid preliminary issues were heard by the learned Addl. District Judge and after hearing the parties, the plaint was rejected on the basis of the findings recorded against the aforesaid two preliminary issues.

(2.) A few facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid suit require mention. The appellants herein belong to one family. They were owners of 89 Bighas and 12 Biswas of land in different Khasra nos. in the revenue estate of Village Samaipur, Delhi. It is alleged in the plaint that Notification No. 775-Revenue was issued under Sections 6 & 7 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act') on 21st December, 1911 for acquisition of lands of the appellants in question. It is alleged that thereafter no further action was taken pursuant to the aforesaid notification in respect of the lands of the appellants. However, subsequently another notification was issued by the respondents on 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the same lands. It is also alleged in the plaint that the said notification recites that the land measuring 16000 acres and marked with block Nos. 1 to 24 is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. A plea was raised that the aforesaid lands of the appellants should be held to be exempted from the purview of the notification dated 24th October, 1961 and a declaration made as the same already stood notified in Notification No. 775-Revenue, dated 21st December, 1911. It was contended that since the subsequent notification has made provision for exemption of the lands already notified under the Notification dated 21st December, 1911, the subsequent notification of 1961 would not cover the lands already notified under the provisions of the Notification of 1911. It is also alleged that the said fact came to the knowledge of the appellants only on 16th December, 1996 when for the first time the appellants came to know that the High Court has held in another case that the lands already notified under the provisions of the earlier notification cannot be acquired by a subsequent notification and the award passed, when it is expressly exempted under the said notification. Consequently the suit in question was filed contending, inter alia, that the lands of the appellants were not the subject matter of the notification dated 24th October, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Act and that the said lands of the appellants were exempt from the purview of Section 4 notification on the ground that there had already been an acquisition in the year 1911.

(3.) The contention raised before the trial Court and also before this Court on behalf of the appellants is that the notification dated 24th October, 1961 issued by the Government for acquisition of the lands and the award made pursuant thereto on 4th July, 1983 are not legal and valid and, therefore, the appellants sought for a declaration to be made that their lands are not covered by the notification dated 24th October, 1961. Another contention which was raised was that the notification dated 24th October, 1961 and the consequent award passed are null and void and that the said award does not apply to the lands of the appellants/plaintiffs.