& Anr Vs. The Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr  INSC 345 (28 July 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
1995 SCC (5) 335 1995 SCALE (4)768
28TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present:
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
following Order of the Court was delivered:
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
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.
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 acquisced in it and remained in uninterrupted
possession and enjoyment, nec vi, nec lam and nec pre cario. That was not the
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.
are accordingly dismissed.