BIRENDRA NATH BANERJEE Vs. MRITUNJOY ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (After stating the facts, proceeded:) Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta, learned Advocate for the appellants, argued three points for our consideration in this appeal. He contended that the Court below was wrong in holding that the plaintiff had not been served with notices either under Section 9 or under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act if the plaintiff be found to have been served with the statutory notices and if he failed, even thereafter, to apply for a reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, within the time provided by law, the suit filed by him must not be held to be maintainable. He contended further that even if no notice had been served on the plaintiff, even then the suit must fail, because there being a special remedy provided by the Land Acquisition Act, no remedy, by way of a suit was available to the plaintiff. Lastly, he contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 and 11 had waived their right to claim the compensation money by reason of the settlement between them and defendant No. 1 whereby they received a sum of Rs. 3000/- in settlement of their disputed claim and they should not be allowed to claim more.

(2.) We propose to take up the second of the three points argued by Mr. Sen Gupta, first of all, because if that point succeeds the other points need not be considered at all. 2a. The question as to where the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted when a statute creates a special jurisdiction and provides for a special remedy is not very easily to be answered. In Craies 'On Statute Law' (fifth edition) the question is dealt with in the following manner :

(3.) In Maxwell on Statute (9th Edition) p. 134, the following passage appears: