Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (1.36 seconds)Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Commissioner, Bangalore Dev.Auth.& ... vs Brijesh Reddy & Anr on 8 February, 2013
51. On the basis of the nature of the suit filed by
Sri.Bhagavandas Patel against the BDA, on the basis of
the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy
case as well as Dhirendra Kumar's case the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in para No.35 to 37 has come
to the conclusion that in view of the acquisition of the
land, suit of any nature including suit one for bare
injunction is not maintainable. The relevant para
reads thus:-
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar vs Dhirendra Kumar & Ors on 27 April, 1995
However, in view of the assertion of BAD, in their
written statements, about the initiation of
acquisition proceedings ending with the passing
of award, handing over possession and
subsequent action, etc. the said suit is not
maintainable. This was rightly concluded by the
trial court. For proper compensation, the
aggrieved parties are free to avail the statutory
provisions and approach the court 35 concerned.
All these aspects have been clearly noted by the
trial court and ultimately it rightly dismissed
the suit as not maintainable. On the other hand,
the learned Single Judge of the High Court
48 O.S.6002/2022
though adverted to the principles laid down by
this Court with reference to acquisition of land
under the Land Acquisition Act and Section 9
CPC committed an error in remanding the matter
to the trial court on the ground that the
plaintiffs were not given opportunity to adduce
evidence to shown that their vendor was in
possession which entitles them for grant of
permanent injunction from evicting them from
the scheduled property without due process of
law by the defendants. In the light of the
specific assertion coupled with materials in the
written statement about the acquisition of land
long ago and subsequent events, suit of any
nature including bare injunction is not
maintainable, hence, we are of view that the
High Court is not right in remitting the matter to
the trial court for fresh disposal (underlining by
me).