Mahavir and Another vs Rural Institute, Amravati and Another

We do not find any justification warranting interference in this matter. Admittedly, notification u/s 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 u/s 6 was published on August 14, 1958. Thus, it could be seen that the sales made after the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) are void sales and the State is not bound by such a sale effected by the owner. Admittedly, the notice u/s 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 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 u/s 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 acquiesced 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.