Supreme Court of India
S.P. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY AND ORS. versus KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.
- Decided
- 26 March 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 370 · 1997 INSC 323
- Also cited as
- AIR 1997 SC 2076
- (1997) 11 SCC 250
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court on January 20, 1997 in CRP No. 4097/96.
p. 370, margin G
The admitted facts are that the acquisition of the petitioners' land has become final. Admittedly notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was issued. The petitioners have challenged the notification in the year 1988. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on January 17, 1990. The special leave petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court on November 21, 1994.
pp. 370–371, margin G
It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation to denotify the part of the land on the ground that he was willing to give 5 out of 11 cents, free of cost. He claims that the Secretary has examined the matter and favourably recommended for consideration. Since they were not been considered, he filed the civil suit for an injunction for restraining them from interfering with his possession. The District Judge vacated the interim injunction granted by the trial Court and in the revision the High Court has dismissed it. Thus, this special leave petition.
p. 371, margin A
In view of the settled legal position that the notification had become final and the proceedings had attained finality, the civil suit was not maintainable. This Court has repeatedly held that a civil suit relating to acquisition proceedings is not maintainable and by implication, cognizance under Section t;, CPC, is barred. The Court cannot issue mandatory injunction against the State to denotify the acquisition under Section 48. Therefore, the question of granting an injunction against the authority from proceedings in accordance with the law does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to grant injunction. The Court cannot compel the Government to withdraw the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is for the Government to consider the same on merits and it keeping in mind subservience of public interest. In view of the fact that notification was upheld by this Court and has become 'final, the Government cannot retract from the steps taken.
p. 371, margin C
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.
p. 371, margin E