Mahavir & Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. The Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr. etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.14430-32 of 1995
Petitioner: Mahavir & Anr. Etc. Etc.
Respondent: The Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr. etc. etc.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.14430-32 of 1995
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 1995
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
Section 16 – Possession taken by state Govt. is complete after notification and Award – Any encumbrance made by owner after Notification does not bind the state.
Section 16 – Possession taken by state Govt. is complete after notification and Award – Any encumbrance made by owner after Notification does not bind the state.
ADVERSE POSSESSION
No question of adverse possession arises unless it is pleaded and proved that they had un-interrupted possession.
Held:
Section 16 the State acquires the right, title and interest in the property free from all encumbrances. So any encumbrance made by the owner after notification under Section 4(1) was published does not bind the State. Possession would be taken through the usual mode of drafting a panchanama by the officer and signed by the witness. It is complete and conclusive.
No question of adverse possession arises unless it is pleaded and proved that after the possession was taken and handed over to the 3rd respondent, the petitions have asserted their own right to the knowledge of the 3rd respondent and it had acquisitioned in it and remained in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment, nec vi, nec lam and nec pre cario. That was not the case. Therefore, they cannot have any semblance of right by prescription.(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We do not find any justification warranting interference in this matter. Admittedly , notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short,’the Act’) was published on January 29, 1957 and thereafter the owner sold the properties to the petitioners on June 11, 1957 and August 22,1958. Declaration under section 6 was published on August 14, 1958. Thus , it could be seen that the sales made after the publication of the notification under section 4(1) are void sales and the state is not bound by such a sale effected by the owner. Admittedly, the notice under sections 9 and 10 was served on September 23, 1958 and award was made on October 9, 1959 and possession was taken on November 18, 1959. Thus, the acquisition was com-plete. The possession of the Government is complete as against the original owner and title of the original owner stood extin-guished and by operation of Section 16 the State acquires the right, title and interest in the property free from all encum-brances. So any encumbrance made by the owner after notifica-tion under Section 4(1) was published does not bind the State. Possession would be taken through the usual mode of drafting a panchanama by the officer and signed by the witness. It is complete and conclusive. Thereby it is clear, as found by the court below that possession was taken as a fact and handed over to the 3rd respondent-society. Therefore, the Society became the absolute owner of the acquired lands free from all encumbrances. The claim of the petitioners that they have perfected title by adverse possession was negatived by all the Courts. No question of adverse possession arises unless it is pleaded and proved that after the possession was taken and handed over to the 3rd respondent, the petitions have asserted their own right to the knowledge of the 3rd respondent and it had acquisitioned in it and remained in uninterrupted posses-sion and enjoyment, nec vi, nec lam and nec pre cario. That was not the case. Therefore, they cannot have any semblance of right by prescription. It is rather unfortunate that State filed a suit for possession. They should have resorted to summery eviction under the Public Premises Act etc.; in-stead they have gone to the Civil Court. All the courts grant-ed decree in favour of the Government and the Society. We do not find any ground warranting interference with judgment and decree in S.A . Nos.146, 147 and 150 of 1982 dated October 11, 1994 of Bombay High Court at Nagpur bench.
2. The S.L.Ps. are accordingly dismissed.
1. We do not find any justification warranting interference in this matter. Admittedly , notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short,’the Act’) was published on January 29, 1957 and thereafter the owner sold the properties to the petitioners on June 11, 1957 and August 22,1958. Declaration under section 6 was published on August 14, 1958. Thus , it could be seen that the sales made after the publication of the notification under section 4(1) are void sales and the state is not bound by such a sale effected by the owner. Admittedly, the notice under sections 9 and 10 was served on September 23, 1958 and award was made on October 9, 1959 and possession was taken on November 18, 1959. Thus, the acquisition was com-plete. The possession of the Government is complete as against the original owner and title of the original owner stood extin-guished and by operation of Section 16 the State acquires the right, title and interest in the property free from all encum-brances. So any encumbrance made by the owner after notifica-tion under Section 4(1) was published does not bind the State. Possession would be taken through the usual mode of drafting a panchanama by the officer and signed by the witness. It is complete and conclusive. Thereby it is clear, as found by the court below that possession was taken as a fact and handed over to the 3rd respondent-society. Therefore, the Society became the absolute owner of the acquired lands free from all encumbrances. The claim of the petitioners that they have perfected title by adverse possession was negatived by all the Courts. No question of adverse possession arises unless it is pleaded and proved that after the possession was taken and handed over to the 3rd respondent, the petitions have asserted their own right to the knowledge of the 3rd respondent and it had acquisitioned in it and remained in uninterrupted posses-sion and enjoyment, nec vi, nec lam and nec pre cario. That was not the case. Therefore, they cannot have any semblance of right by prescription. It is rather unfortunate that State filed a suit for possession. They should have resorted to summery eviction under the Public Premises Act etc.; in-stead they have gone to the Civil Court. All the courts grant-ed decree in favour of the Government and the Society. We do not find any ground warranting interference with judgment and decree in S.A . Nos.146, 147 and 150 of 1982 dated October 11, 1994 of Bombay High Court at Nagpur bench.
2. The S.L.Ps. are accordingly dismissed.
