Judgment:
Chauhan, J.
1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, i.e. Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil First Appeal No. 29/1999 dated 31.10.2001, by which it had affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 34/1999 dated 5.4.99.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that certain land of the appellants had been acquired long back alongwith the land of others and respondent No. 4. After completing the requirements of law, possession of the land had been taken and vested in the State free from all incumbrances, the land was used for the purpose it had been acquired, but certain pieces of land out of the land originally owned by the appellant-plaintiffs remained un-used for the purpose. The respondent No. 4 had not been paid full amount of compensation and the matter remained pending. He applied to the concerned Authorities that in lieu of compensation, the surplus land may be allotted to him. Appellant-plaintiffs, apprehending that the land may be allotted to respondent No. 4, filed the civil suit seeking relief of restraining the Authorities to allot the land to respondent No. 4 and further seeking the relief of allotment of land to them. The suit had been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.99 on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable at the benefit of the appellants and they had no locus standi after their land had vested in the State and as the land once vested in the State free from all incumbrances, the same cannot be divested; if a part of the land remains unused for the purpose it had been acquired, it is the sole concern of the Authority how to use it; moreso, jurisdiction of civil court was impliedly barred by Section 9 of the Code of civil Procedure, as the land Acquisition act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') is a complete Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant preferred first appeal, which has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2001. Hence this appeal.
3. The question involved herein are two-folds as to: whether civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a person whose land had long been acquired and the land stood vested in the State to prevent the State Government to deal with any other person in respect of surplus land for the use other than the purpose for which the land had been acquired; and as to whether the appellants have any locus standi to file a civil suit in this respect.
4. It is settled legal proposition that the land acquisition is nothing but a sale and purchase of immovable property, which is also permissible under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act; however, considering the fact that land is required for public purpose and land-owner may not agree to sell it, the Act had been made a device as a mode of compulsory purchase of land against the wishes of the land owner. The Act had been enacted, considering the view of larger public interest and as the Land is taken away against the wishes of the owner, the Act provides for solatium. Even regarding the determination of market value, the proviso to Section 11 of the Act provides for entering into as agreement with the land owner by the Collector.
5. The Act is a complete Code in itself and provides for the forum of resolving the dispute. Thus, it has repeatedly been held that in matters relating to land acquisition, civil suits are barred. Moreso, the is no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that once possession of the land is taken, it vests in the State free from all incumbrances whatsoever and in that eventuality, the proceedings of the Act cannot be withdrawn even by resorting to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. (Vide Balwant Narain Bagde v. M.D. Bhagwat (1).
6. In Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma (2), similar view had been reiterated that one the land had vested in the State, it cannot be reverted to the original owner even if the land acquisition notification is quashed or withdrawn.
7. In Satyendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and Ors. (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh (supra) and the Rajasthan Housing Board v. Kishan (4), and held that once the land vested in the State after taking the possession under Section 16 of the Act, it cannot be divested and even if the award had not been made within the stipulated period, as provided under the Act, the proceedings would not vitiate.
8. In Awadh Biari Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (5), a similar view hasbeen reiterated that once the land had vested in the State by taking possession evenby resorting to the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act and the award and not been madewithin the stipulated period, the proceedings would not lapse, nor the Government isempowered to withdraw the acquisition in exercise of the power under Section 48 ofthe Act.
9. In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors. (6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Code, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in respect of the land acquisition matters for the reason that the Act itself is a complete Code. Similar view has been reiterated in Laxmi Chand and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia (7); and Collector of Pune v. I.B. Gokhale (8).
10. Therefore, in view of the above, one may reach the inescapable conclusion that the Act, being a complete Code, civil suit is not maintainable. Moreso, one the land vested in the State, it cannot be divested and the interested person cannot maintain a suit having any grievance in respect of the acquisition of land. If he is aggrieved, for one reason of other, he may approach the Writ Court.
11. It is settled law that the user of the land cannot be changed prior to taking of possession of the land, but once the possession of the land had been taken and it vested in the State, as it cannot be divested, the Acquiring Authority has an absolute right to change the user of the land.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulam Mustaffa v. State of Maharastra and Ors. (9), examined an issue: whether after acquiring the land for a particular purpose and utilisation for that purpose, certain land remained excessive, can be used by the Acquiring Authority for the different purposes. The Court held as under:-
'Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the municipality, how it uses the excess land, is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition, there is no principle of law, by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands weeded because long after the Acquiring Authority divested it to the parties other than the one stand in Section 5(3) of the declaration.'
13. In C. Padma and Ors. v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (10), the Supreme Court held that where the land had been acquired long ago and there remained certain piece of land which was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, it is open to the Authority concerned to use it in any manner it likes and the original owner cannot be permitted to raise any grievance whatsoever in respect of such land.
14. In Balarpur Industries Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (11), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the land acquisition proceedings are complete and the land has vested in the State, it is for the Authority to decide how it wants to use the same.
15. I find on force in the submission of Mr. Jain that the appellants are still in possession of the land for the reason that it is not the appellants' case that the possession of the land had not been taken after acquisition or it had not vested in the State of they had not drawn the compensation for the said acquisition. In such an eventuality, if the appellants are in possession, they are merely trespassers and it would be traversity of justice to entertain their case on the ground that inspite of being withdrawing the compensation for the entire land they are still continuing their possession.
16. In view of the above, one may reach the inescapable conclusion that civil court's jurisdiction is barred impliedly for the reason that the Act is a complete Code and once the land vested in the State free from all incumbrances, it cannot be divested, if the acquisition is valid and the land vested in the State free from all incumbrances, the Acquiring Authority has a right to use it for the purpose other than for which it had been acquired. Even if the land is used for the purpose it had been acquired and some land remains excessive, it is the sole concern of the Acquiring Authority how to use it. Under no circumstance, the original land-holder can raise any grievance whatsoever in respect of his land.
17. In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved. The Courts below have rightly held that the suit was not maintainable at the behest of the appellants who had no locus standi.
18. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without being admitted.