DILIP BUILDCOM LTD. Vs. GHANSHYAM DAS DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the defendant challenging the order dtd. 30/10/2019 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.57-A/2019, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed for rejection of the plaint, on the ground that in view of Sec. 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'LARR Act, 2013'), the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings of land acquisition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the land/property in question bearing in Survey No.594/4/E area 0.01 hectare owned and possessed by the respondent-Ghanshyam has already been acquired vide final award dtd. 12/12/2017 and this fact is in the knowledge of the applicant but till now, the plaintiff/respondent has not challenged the award merely because of issuance of temporary injunction in the pending suit by learned trial Court in respect of the same property, which is coming in the way of raising construction of a bridge. He submits that in the light of Sec. 63 of the LARR Act, 2013, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to record any finding on the validity or otherwise of the acquisition process of the suit property undertaken and completed by the statutory authorities and even no temporary injunction can be granted by the Court. He submits that if the respondent/plaintiff is aggrieved by the award dtd. 12/12/2017, he is having right to challenge the same before the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Legal Representatives (2020) 16 SCC 601; Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Others (2004) 11 SCC 168; J.M. Biswas Vs. N.K. Bhattacharjee and others (2002) 4 SCC 68; and The Chairman, The State Government Employees Shikshana Sangha Vs. Hanumantasa Tulajansa Pawar and Others ILR 2013 Karnataka 3629.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order and submits that on the date of filing of the suit, no acquisition proceeding was started and even the notifications under Ss. 4 and 11 of the Act were not published indicating the acquisition of plaintiff's land and directly while passing the final award, the plaintiff's property has been shown under acquisition. Accordingly, he submits that the land acquisition proceedings which were started and completed during pendency of suit, cannot be considered as a bar provided under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, because at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the plaint averments are required to be seen. In support of his submissions, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and others 2012(4) MPLJ 481, he prays for dismissal of the civil revision.