Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the State of Maharashtra and others (original defendants) challenging the order dated 18.02.1998 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No.873 of 1997. The Trial Court had held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The respondents (original plaintiffs) had filed the suit on 16.09.1997 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the applicants from taking over possession and creating third party rights in the suit property, which was agricultural land bearing Gat No.456/2 ad-measuring 2 Hectares, 2 Ares situated at Village Waluj, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur. The applicants filed an application for framing a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons and Rehabilitation Act, 1986, which was substituted in place of the Maharashtra Re-Settlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Trial Court rejected this contention and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, noted that the suit was for injunction based on the allegation that the defendants were attempting to take possession of the suit land without following due process of law. The High Court held that the bar under Section 22 of the 1986 Act applies only to matters which the Commissioner or Tribunal is empowered to decide, and the present suit does not relate to any such matter. Therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The High Court found no merit in the revision application and dismissed it, confirming the Trial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Ouster of Jurisdiction - Section 9 CPC, Section 22 Maharashtra Project Affected Persons and Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - The Trial Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction restraining the State from taking possession of land, as the suit did not challenge the acquisition proceedings but only alleged unauthorized possession. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the bar under Section 22 of the 1986 Act applies only to matters which the Commissioner or Tribunal is empowered to decide, and the suit for injunction based on alleged unauthorized possession is not covered by such bar. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Acquisition - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 22 Maharashtra Project Affected Persons and Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - The High Court held that the bar under Section 22 of the 1986 Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for injunction where the plaintiff alleges that the defendants are attempting to take possession without following due process of law. The suit is not barred as it does not relate to any matter which the Commissioner or Tribunal is empowered to decide under the Act. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the State from taking possession of land, in view of the bar under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons and Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, confirming the Trial Court's order that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Law Points
- Civil Court jurisdiction
- ouster of jurisdiction
- Section 9 CPC
- Section 22 Maharashtra Project Affected Persons and Rehabilitation Act
- 1986
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- preliminary issue
- injunction suit
