Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot replace writ or civil remedies where land was allegedly taken without acquisition.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies only where land has been acquired and the dispute concerns compensation, measurements, or the persons entitled to receive compensation. It is not an alternative remedy where the grievance is that land was taken without any acquisition. In such a situation, the landholder may pursue a civil suit, or invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if State action is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or without authority of law. Delay and laches may still bar belated writ petitions, and an appropriate civil remedy remains relevant where the dispute is essentially private or boundary-based. The High Court's dismissal on the supposed availability of Section 18 was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition alleging that land was taken over without acquisition could be dismissed on the ground that the remedy lay under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: An application under Section 18 lies only where the land has been acquired under the Act and the dispute concerns matters such as compensation, measurements, or the persons entitled to receive compensation. It does not apply where the grievance is that land was taken without any acquisition. In such a case, the landholder may pursue a civil suit or, where the State action is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or without authority of law, invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court therefore erred in treating Section 18 as an alternative remedy for a claim that the land itself had not been acquired. At the same time, the Court noted that belated writ petitions must still be scrutinised on the ground of delay and laches and on the availability of an appropriate civil remedy where the dispute is essentially private or boundary-based.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition on the supposed availability of a remedy under Section 18 was unsustainable and the matter required reconsideration by the High Court.

---