RAKESH GUPTA Vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from order dated 13.5.1994, passed by learned Civil Judge, Moradabad in Original Suit No. 748 of 1994 by which the application of the Appellants for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, giving rise to the dispute are that plot No. 499 area 0.101 hectare was purchased by the Appellants from one Ganga Ram, son of Kallu. Mutation in the names of the Appellants was granted on 4.1.1993. However, the land in dispute was already notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) along with other plots on 22.3.1990 for purpose of acquisition for Moradabad Development Authority. Objections under Section 9 of the Act were invited and thereafter notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in official gazette on 10.6.1991. It was also published in newspapers on 1.7.1991 and 2.7.1991 and thereafter public notice was given on 19.9.1991. The award has been given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.9.1993. The Appellants filed suit No. 748 of 1994 in May, 1994 for the relief of permanent injunction against the Defendant not to interfere in possession of the Plaintiffs -Appellants over the land in dispute. Relief has also been claimed in the alternative that if any construction is found on the land in dispute, same may be demolished. Along with this suit an application under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure was also filed supported by an affidavit wherein it was prayed that Defendant may be restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute or from plotting or making any construction over the same during the pendency of the suit. It was claimed by the Plaintiffs that they are still in possession of the land in dispute and as the award has not been given within two years from the date of the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, the entire proceedings have lapsed and the Defendant has no authority to occupy the land or to raise any construction over the same.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the date 19.9.1991 has been wrongly shown as the date for public notice under Section 6(1) of the Act. Their case was that notice was given on 20.6.1991 and as the award has not been given within two years, the proceedings have lapsed. It has also been submitted that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act could not be applied to the present case and the learned Civil Judge has illegally rejected the application on the basis of the provisions of Section 17. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case Plaintiffs were entitled for an interim injunction which has been wrongly refused. Reliance has been placed in case of Durg Transport Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and Ors. reported in : AIR 1965 MP 142 (DB) and case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Ors. v. Sita Ram Bhai Chandra Sukhtahkar and Ors. reported in : AIR 1983 SC 742.