http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PUTTU LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3)  99        JT 1996 (3)    53  1996 SCALE  (2)586

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and decree  of the  High Court  of Judicature  at  Allahabad dated July 15, 1976 made in Civil First Appeal No.11/65. The State filed  the suit for recovery of possession of property from the  respondents pursuant  to the  orders passed  under Section 145  of the  Cr.P.C. The  civil Court  dismissed the suit but on appeal the High Court allowed the same.      The  admitted   facts  are  that  the  land  originally belonged to  Smt. Kokilla.  Notification under Section  4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the ’Act’] was published on  April 15, 1928 and declaration under Section 6 was published  on July  28, 1928 acquiring the land known as Phulwari for public purposes namely, for construction of the quarters for  the constables of Police outpost Misrana. That acquisition has  become  final.  Now,  the  High  Court  has recorded a  finding of  fact that  compensation was  paid to Smt. Kokila  and, therefore,  the land  stood vested  in the State  under   Section  16   of  the   Act  free   from  all encumbrances.      The contention  raised by  the appellant  is  that  the proceedings were  taken under  the U.P.  Encumbered  Estates Act, 1955  and the  property was  declared to  be encumbered estate. As  a consequence,  the  title  of  the  appellants’ predecessor was upheld. He being the purchaser at an auction is entitled  to the  possession by  virtue of  his title. We find no  force in  the contention.  Having acquired the land under the  provisions of  the Act  and the possession having been taken thereunder, the rights title and interest held by Smt. Kokila  stood extinguished and vested in the State free from  all  encumbrances.  Consequently,  the  State  is  the absolute owner.  The State,  being the owner, is entitled to file the suit for possession. The High Court, therefore, has rightly found  that the  appellants at this distance of time cannot question  the correctness  of the acquisition made in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

1928.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.