Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of land acquisition proceedings for the Kanhan River Project. The petitioner's father had entered into agreements with respondent No.3 (owner) for the suit property, including a receipt dated 06.02.1991 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.11.2015, under which considerations were paid and respondent No.3 declared no subsisting right, title, or interest in the property. A Power of Attorney was later executed and subsequently cancelled. The land was acquired, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in respondent No.3's name. The petitioner filed an application for reference for apportionment under Sections 76 and 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. After an earlier writ petition was allowed, a reference was made to the Authority. Meanwhile, the petitioner's father (later substituted by petitioner) filed a suit for specific performance where an injunction was granted. The Authority refused to stay its proceedings pending the civil suit. The petitioner challenged this refusal before the High Court, arguing that only a civil court could grant specific performance and that allowing the Authority to decide apportionment first would prejudice his claim. The respondent opposed, contending that the agreements were void due to acquisition and that the Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over apportionment. The Court examined the principles of civil court jurisdiction, noting that a statutory bar does not operate when the relief sought cannot be fully granted by the special forum. It observed that the Authority could decide apportionment, while the civil court could independently determine specific performance. The Court's final decision on the writ petition was not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Bar on Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 9 - Civil court jurisdiction is all-pervasive unless expressly or impliedly barred; even with a statutory bar, if all reliefs claimed cannot be granted by the special forum, civil court retains jurisdiction. Held that a civil suit for specific performance involves relief that the land acquisition authority cannot grant, thus civil court jurisdiction is not completely ousted. (Para 11)
B) Land Acquisition - Apportionment - Stay of Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 76, 77, 63 - The Authority under the Act is competent to decide apportionment, and its proceedings need not be stayed merely because a civil suit for specific performance is pending. Held that the two proceedings address different reliefs and can coexist, and the Authority correctly refused to stay its proceedings. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under the RFCTLARR Act should stay its proceedings when a civil suit for specific performance of contract regarding the acquired land is pending, given the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction is all pervasive and can be excluded only by express statutory provision or necessary implication
- even where a statute bars jurisdiction
- civil court can entertain dispute if all reliefs claimed are not capable of being granted by the special tribunal
- under the RFCTLARR Act
- the Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to decide apportionment
- specific performance of contract is a relief only a civil court can grant
- the Authority need not stay its proceedings merely because a civil suit for specific performance is pending
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 35
WRIT PETITION NO.846 OF 2026
R. M. Bhangde for Petitioner, Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, D. L. Dharmadhikari for Respondent No.3
Sanjay Ramashankar Tiwari
1 The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Kanholi Nala Project, Nagpur; 2 Collector, Nagpur; 3 Mayankkumar S/o Sushilchandra Tiwari; 4 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) through Executive Engineer, Kanholi Nala Project
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority refusing to stay its proceedings pending a civil suit for specific performance of contract regarding acquired land.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought stay of proceedings before the Authority under the RFCTLARR Act until the decision of the civil suit for specific performance, to prevent conflicting decisions and ensure his claim to compensation is determined by the civil court.
Filing Reason
The Authority refused to stay its proceedings despite the pendency of a civil suit where the petitioner claimed entitlement to the entire compensation based on agreements for sale, which the Authority could not adjudicate; the petitioner feared that the Authority's decision on apportionment would prejudice his rights.
Previous Decisions
In an earlier writ petition (WP 3979/2023), the High Court directed the Deputy Collector to accept the petitioner's application for reference under Section 76; the Deputy Collector then made a reference to the Authority, registered as Case No.3/NGP/NEP/2025. In the civil suit, an order of temporary injunction was granted in favor of the petitioner's father on 08.08.2025, restraining respondent No.3 from disturbing possession and creating third-party interests. The suit is pending with applications for dismissal and amendment.
Issues
Whether the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under the RFCTLARR Act should stay its proceedings when a civil suit for specific performance of contract regarding the acquired land is pending, given the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide the claim for specific performance, which is exclusively within the domain of the civil court; therefore, the Authority's proceedings should be stayed until the civil suit is decided to avoid conflicting decisions and protect the petitioner's right to receive compensation if specific performance is decreed. Relied on Sukhbir v. Ajit Singh.
Respondent No.3 contended that the agreements were not sale agreements, that the land acquisition rendered the agreements void, and that the Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to decide apportionment under Section 76; the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 63, and the relief sought by way of amendment (entire compensation) is the same as before the Authority, so the suit is not maintainable. Relied on Deputy Collector v. Ibrahim Musa Athoniya and Nandi Infrastructure v. B. Gurappa Naidu.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a statute bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, such bar is not absolute; if all reliefs claimed cannot be granted by the special tribunal or authority, the civil court retains jurisdiction. Under the RFCTLARR Act, the Authority can decide apportionment but cannot grant specific performance of contract; therefore, a civil suit for specific performance can proceed independently, and the Authority need not stay its proceedings merely because such a suit is pending.
Judgment Excerpts
The jurisdiction of Civil Court is all pervasive. It has jurisdiction to decide all disputes of civil nature except in cases where the jurisdiction is barred either expressly or by necessary implication.
It is well settled that in cases where an Act provides for a special forum for adjudication of certain claims and simultaneously bars jurisdiction of Civil Court, yet the Civil Court will...
Procedural History
On 06.02.1991, agreement entered between father of petitioner and respondent No.3 for lease for mining clay; on 16.11.2015, MOU executed ratifying earlier agreement and declaring respondent No.3 has no right; on 10.01.2018, POA executed by respondent No.3 in favor of father of petitioner (erroneously dated 10.01.2017); on 26.02.2018, respondent No.3 cancelled POA; on 24.03.2018, petitioner's father replied to notice; land acquisition proceedings initiated; petitioner filed application for reference under Sections 76 and 77; WP 3979/2023 filed and allowed directing re-tendering of application; reference registered as Case No.3/NGP/NEP/2025 before Authority; father of petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.78/2022 (initially 882/2018) for specific performance; temporary injunction granted on 08.08.2025; after father's demise, petitioner prosecuting suit; application for amendment and dismissal pending; petitioner filed application for stay before Authority; Authority rejected stay on 05.01.2026; present writ petition filed challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 76, 77, 51, 63
- Constitution of India: 227
