9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act ] acquiring land for construction of the school for public purpose, was published on April 16, 1969. Validity thereof was challenged in C.M.P. No.60 of 1969. The High Court by its order dated January 23, 1970 dismissed the writ petition. Award under Section 11 was made on September 24, 1974. Validity of the acquisition and of the award was challenged by filing a civil suit on January 3, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to make the award under Section 11 of the Act. The award is, therefore, clearly illegal for want of jurisdiction. It would appear that after the High Court had upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4 [1] and the declaration under Section 6, an application was filed in the High Court for claiming value of the property in which the High Court determined market value at ₹ 7,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... published the same in the Gazette. Therefore, the mere fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had stopped further action to make the award did not divest him of his power and jurisdiction to make the award. It is seen that Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 gives jurisdiction to the civil court to try all civil suits, unless barred. The cognisance of a suit of civil nature may either expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to. If possession is taken it stands vested under Section 16 in the State with absolute title free from all encumbrances and the Government has no power to withdraw from acquisition. It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognisance of the case arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
