Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MAHAVIR & ANR. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE RURAL INSTITUTE, AMRAVATI & ANR. ETC.ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (5) 335 1995 SCALE (4)768
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 1995
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Paripoornan
Mr.Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. and Mr.T.V.S.N.Chari, Advs. for the
petitioners.
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO. 14430-32 OF 1995
MAHAVIR & ANR. ETC.ETC.
VERSUS
THE RURAL INSTITUTE, AMRAVATI & ANR. ETC.ETC.
O R D E R
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 Section 9 and 10 September 23, 1958 and award was made
on October 9, 1959 and possession was taken on November 18,
1959. Thus, the acquisition was complete. The possession of
the Government is complete as against the original owner and
title of the original owner stood extinguished and by
operation of 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 acquisced 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. It is rather unfortunate that State filed a
suit for possession. They should have resorted to summery
eviction under the Public Premises Act etc. instead they
have gone to the Civil Court. All the courts granted 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.
The S.L.Ps are accordingly dismissed.