JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the possession notice (Annex. 16) issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1894') in respect of the plots referred to therein measuring an area of five bighas 10 biswansis.
2. The main thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel was that the said land was not acquired and left out for the Yojana earlier and as such the respondents cannot take possession of the land which has not been acquired nor had been subjected to the acquisition proceedings.
3. Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2004 which was dismissed on 20.11.2004 leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. A copy of the said judgment has been produced before the Court.
4. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 1085 of 2004 and it is alleged that some injunction is operating in favour of the petitioner but forcible possession has been taken by the respondents on 25.11.2004, i.e. just after five days of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition.
5. Shri Chaudhary relied upon a large number of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court for the proposition that action of the respondents is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
6. Having perused the records of the writ petition and having considered the submissions advanced, it is clear that the present writ petition has been filed for the relief for which the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and with regard to which the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2004 has been dismissed on 20.11.2004. Whatever grievances the petitioner has, is already engaging the attention of the Civil Court and since the claim of the petitioner is with regard to the identity of the land which the petitioner contends, was not subject matter of acquisition, therefore, it is only the Civil Court which can consider the claim of the petitioner.
7. We do not find any force in the contention raised by Shri Chaudhary that the Civil Suit is not maintainable in respect of such matters, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Dhirender Kumar ; and Laxmichand and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Kararia , has consistently held that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in Civil Court. In the above referred to cases, the validity of acquisition proceedings had been challenged. The Apex Court held that the Act, 1894 itself is a self-contained Code and thus for that purpose, by virtue of the provisions of Section 9 C.P.C., the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood implied barred. The ratio of the said judgments is not attracted in a case where a party claims that possession of the land is being taken which has not been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Statute. In the instant case, a Civil Suit is pending only on the ground that the possession was being taken though the land had never been notified under the provisions of the Act 1894 or the U.P. Avas Evams Vikas Parisahd Adhiniyam, 1965. What the Hon'ble Apex Court has held is that the validity of acquisition proceedings as such cannot be a subject matter of Civil Suit. The ratio of the said judgments cannot be stretched to the extent that the Civil Suit is not maintainable to protect the land which has never been subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. In such a case, Civil Suit is the appropriate remedy. The petitioner's suit is still pending in respect of the same land and some interim order has been granted. In case possession has been taken in violation of the said interim injunction, petitioner ought to have moved appropriate application before the Civil Court itself for appropriate relief.
8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and Anr. held that even where a party has approached the alternative forum, the Court should entertain a writ petition or not, a straight jacket formula cannot be formulated. The Court may examine the facts and circumstances of the case and decide as to whether it was to entertain the petition or not. However, where the petitioner has already approached the alternative forum for appropriate relief, it is not appropriate that the writ petition should be entertained. The rule is based on public policy and motivating factor is that of existence of the parallel jurisdiction in another Court.
9. In Jai Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case wherein the petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed in limine. Subsequently, he filed a suit agitating the same subject matter. The Court held that suit was not maintainable as a person cannot be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter at the same time.
10. In Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. and Ors. , the petitioner therein had filed a writ petition during the pendency of the appeal before the Statutory Authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such a writ was not maintainable.
11. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarised that public policy demands that a person has a right to choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, but he cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject matter for the same relief. There may be a case of forum hunting that a party who filed a suit, may not be able to get the interim relief. It may abandon the remedy before the civil Court and approach the remedy of filing the writ petition. Thus, it will amount to abuse of the process of the Court by forum hunting.
12. After meeting his water low in the earlier writ petition which was dismissed only on 20.11.2004 substantially for the same relief, the petitioner cannot be permitted to bring the successive petitions under the garb of challenging the dispossession illegally.
13. The petitioner cannot challenge the notice under Section 9 of the Act 1894 independently without challenging the acquisition proceedings as such. We had heard this matter earlier on 15th and when we came to know that acquisition proceedings have also been challenged in Writ Petition No. 20416 of 1989 which is still pending consideration and no interim order is in force in the said case, we directed that matter also to be listed along with this petition. However, we have examined the said Writ Petition No. 20416 of 1989 and wanted to decide the same along with this writ petition but Mr. Chaudhary adopted an unwarranted attitude that he has not come to argue the said petition as it was not listed in a proper manner. Thus, we could not hear and dispose of the said petition.
14. In view of the above, we feel that petition cannot be entertained for the simple reason that if the land in dispute had ever been a subject matter of acquisition proceedings, petitioner's Writ Petition No. 20416 of 1989 is still pending in this respect. If the land in dispute had not been subject matter of acquisition proceedings as this Court has rightly held while dismissing its Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2004 vide order dated 20.11.2004 that the Civil Suit is appropriate remedy for the purpose. The Civil Suit is still pending. Petition is totally misconceived and hence dismissed.