S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 998 of 1970 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Surat for a declaration that the acquisition of land bearing S. No. 188 of Ward No. 9 situate in the city of Surat is unlawful and ultra vires. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff applied for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of the said land. The defendants to the suit are the State of Gujarat the Collector of Surat and the Land Acquisition Officer Branch No. 4 Surat. ( 2 ) THE learned Trial Judge rejected the plaintiffs application for interim injunction on the ground that no statutory notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendants and that therefore the suit was not maintainable. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge held that the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the statutory notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not served upon the defendants was erroneous. However he dismissed the appeal because sec. 47a of the Land Acquisition Act inserted by sec. 21 of the Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act 1963 prohibits Civil Courts from issuing injunctions against the acquiring Authorities in matters of land acquisition. ( 4 ) IT is against that appellate order that this Civil Revision Application has been filed. ( 5 ) MR. Chokhawala appearing for the plaintiff has contended before me that sec. 47a has no application to the instant case. Sec. 47a provides as under. (1) In the application of this Act to the State of Gujarat for sec. 47 the provisions of sub-secs. (2) and (3) of this section shall be substituted. ( 5 ) MR. Chokhawala appearing for the plaintiff has contended before me that sec. 47a has no application to the instant case. Sec. 47a provides as under. (1) In the application of this Act to the State of Gujarat for sec. 47 the provisions of sub-secs. (2) and (3) of this section shall be substituted. (2) If the Collector is opposed or impeded in taking possession under this Act of any land or in preventing enjoyment of any easement extinguished under this Act he shall if a District Magistrate enforce the surrender of the land to himself or the closure of such easement and if not such Magistrate he shall apply in area for which a Commissioner of Police has been appointed to the Commissioner of Police and else where to any Executive Magistrate and such Commissioner or Magistrate shall enforce the surrender of the land to the Collector or as the case may be the closure of such easement. (3) Any action taken by a Collector Magistrate or Commissioner of Police under sub-sec. (2) shall not be questioned in any Civil Court and no injunction shall be issued by such Court for restraining such action but the aggrieved party shall be entitled in such Court to reasonable compensation for any damage suffered by him by reason of the powers under this section being exercised by any such officer wrongfully or without authority. ( 6 ) THE first contention which Mr. Chokhawala has raised before me is that sub-sec. (2) of sec. 47a contemplates a valid action Oil the part of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. If the action taken by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act is challenged as unlawful or ultra vires his powers then sec. 47a has no application to such an action and any suit filed for challenging such an action is not subject to the provisions of sec. 47a. I am unable to agree with Mr. Chokhawala in this submission of his. All the sub-sections have got to be read together in order to find out the intention of the Legislature. Sub-sec. (3) provides for reasonable compensation for any damage which a person may have suffered by reason of the wrongful exercise of his power by an officer or by the exercise of some power by an officer without authority. All the sub-sections have got to be read together in order to find out the intention of the Legislature. Sub-sec. (3) provides for reasonable compensation for any damage which a person may have suffered by reason of the wrongful exercise of his power by an officer or by the exercise of some power by an officer without authority. Sec. 47a therefore in terms contemplates cases of wrongful exercise of power under the Land Acquisition Act by an officer or exercise of power by an officer without authority. Reading sub-sec. (2) in light of sub-sec. (3) it is clear to me that the actions contemplated by sub-sec. (2) are not necessarily valid actions. They must purport to be Actions under the Land Acquisition Act. If the connotation of sub-sec. (2) is circumscribed only to valid actions under the Land Acquisition Act as Mr. Chokhawala contends then the provisions of sub-sec. (3) would be rendered absolutely redundant because in such a case no question of providing for compensation for wrongful exercise of power or exercise of power without authority will at all arise. .