Bombay HC clarifies lack of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Land Acquisition Act

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed the lack of Civil Court jurisdiction in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Bench explained that any challenge to the legality of notifications or procedures adopted by the state must be brought exclusively before Constitutional Courts under writ jurisdiction. Justice Sandeep V. Marne heard a Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit by the District Judge and Trial Court at Thane. The appellants had sought a declaration that a land acquisition award was invalid because the author died before signing it, thereby claiming the acquisition of their property by the City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) was unlawful. 

Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Acquisition Matters 

The Bombay High Court observed that despite the appellants' attempt to frame the suit as a simple declaration of ownership, the core of the dispute remained a challenge to the acquisition process initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Bench emphasized that once notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 are issued, the validity of the procedure cannot be questioned in a civil suit. 

The Bombay High Court reasoned that "...the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and that jurisdiction of Civil Court to take cognizance of land acquisition proceedings under Section 9 of the Code is clearly excluded... Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction being granted on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right available for the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power." 

Background 

The dispute originated when the Government of Maharashtra issued notifications in 1970 and 1972 to acquire lands in Thane for CIDCO's planned development. The appellants contended that no award was made within the mandatory two-year period under Section 11A, and that a purported award was invalid as it was not signed by the officer before his demise. They filed a civil suit for a declaration that the property did not vest in the government and for an injunction against CIDCO. 

The respondents argued that the suit was a veiled attempt to challenge the acquisition after receiving notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Bombay High Court relied on Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others and Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs. Brijesh Reddy ( "(2013) 3 SCC 66": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 192) to hold that the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction. It further cited State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar ( "(1995) 4 SCC 229": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 408) and Laxmi Chand vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia ( "(1996) 7 SCC 218": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 544), noting that the legality of procedures under the Act cannot be reviewed by civil judges. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that an appeal is a continuation of a suit, and since the suit itself was without jurisdiction, the court could not even address the academic question of the unsigned award's efficacy. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: SECOND APPEAL NO.105 OF 2003 

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:37178 

Case Title: Narendra Janardan Mhatre & Ors. V/S State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh S. Datar 

For the Respondent(s): Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Ms. P.M. Bhansali for CIDCO; Mr. D.J. Haldankar, AGP for State 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 5647