BAPPASAHEB KISHANRAO GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Kulkarni, for the petitioner; and Shri Deshmukh, A. G. P. , for respondent No. 1. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1984 against the present respondents praying that the defendants be restrained from carrying out the work of percolation tank on the lands of the plaintiff mentioned in the suit and from taking possession of the lands from the plaintiff. The plaintiffs also prayed that the lands be not acquired for the purpose of percolation tank. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed application for amendment contending that the respondents have completed the proceedings of land acquisition as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and even the final award is passed. So, the plaintiffs wanted to bring on record all these circumstances and further for praying that the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the final award passed under the said Act be declared illegal and be quashed.

(2.) IT is very clear that the suit is filed, as well as the amendment application is filed, challenging the acquisition of the land. However, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any such suit. The Apex Court in the matter of (State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and others), reported in A. I. R. 1995 S. C. 1955, had observed in paragraph 2a as follows:

(3.) IN view of this judgment, the suit itself is not maintainable. Interim injunction order passed in the matter is also not maintainable and the application of amendment is also not maintainable.