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

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SADHU RAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   118        1996 SCALE  (5)577

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 25TH DAY OF JULY,1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Manoj Swarup, Adv. for the appellants. Shashi Bhushan,(Pramod Dayal,) Adv.(NP) for the Respondent                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: State of Punjab & Ors. V. Sadhu Ram                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of the Punjab & Haryana made on October 10,  1983 in  Regular Second  Appeal No.28  of 1983, reversing the  judgments of  the appellate  Court and  trial Court and decreeing the suit with prayer that the respondent is an  equitable  owner  of  the  lands  and  directing  the appellant  to   deliver  possession  of  the  lands  to  the erstwhile owners.      The undisputed facts are that on 25.5.1951 notification under Section  4(1) of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for  short, the  "Act") was published. Thereafter, an award came  to be  passed and  compensation was  paid to the erstwhile owners.  The land  was acquired for the purpose of digging the  earth and  completion of the bridge. The bridge came to  be completed in the year 1954. Thereafter, when the land was  in pits the respondent came to be in possession as a lessee in the year 1965. He paid the premium till the year 1974-75. The  total extent  of the  land is  about 70 acres. Subsequently,  it  would  appear  that  the  respondent  had purchased the lands from the erstwhile owners. by registered sale deeds and filed the civil suits in 1976 for declaration that he  is an equitable owner of the land and alternatively for a  direction to  surrender the  land  to  the  erstwhile owners.

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

    The  learned   Judge  having   noticed  the   procedure prescribed  in   disposal  of   the  land  acquired  by  the Government for  public purposes,  has  held  that  the  said procedure was  not followed for surrendering the land to the erstwhile owner.  The respondent  having purchased  the land had improved upon the land and is, therefore, entitled to be an equitable owner of the land. We wholly fail to appreciate the view  taken by the High Court. The learned Judge had not referred to  the relevant  provisions of the Act and law. It is an  undisputed fact  that consequent  upon the passing of the award under Section 11 and possession taken of the land, by operation  of Section 16 of the Act, the right, title and interest of  the erstwhile  owner stood extinguished and the Government became  absolute owner  of the property free from all encumbrances. Thereby, no one has nor claimed any rights title and  interest in  respect of the acquired land. Before the possession  could be  taken, the  Government have  power under Section 48(1) of the Act to denotify the land. In that event, land  is required  to be surrendered to the erstwhile owners. That  is not  the case  on the  facts of  this case. Under these  circumstances, the Government having become the absolute owner  or the  property free from all encumbrances, unless the  title is  conferred on  any person in accordance with a  procedure known  to law,  no one can claim any title much less  equitable title  by remaining  in possession. The trial Court  as well  as the  appellant Court  negatived the plea of  the respondent that he was inducted into possession as a lessee for a period of 20 years. On the other hand, the finding was  that he  was in  possession as lessee on yearly basis. Having  lawfully come  into possession as a lessee of the Government.  Section 116 of Evidence Act estops him from denying title  of the  Government and  set it  up  in  third party. By disclaiming Government title he forfeited even the annual lease.  Under these  circumstances, having  come into possession as  a lessee;  after expiry and forfeiture of the lease, he  has no  right. Illegal and unlawful possession of the land entails payment of damages to the Government.      The entries  in the  revenue records  came to be relied upon by  the High  Court. Thereby, he trapped himself in the paradise of  the; patwari  who freely fabricated the entries in revenue  records. Can an Executive Engineer has any power on behalf of the Government to confer title on the erstwhile owner by  surrender? If so, under what provisions? It is not the case  that as  per procedure  in financial code the land was reallotted  to him  or erstwhile  owner. Do  the entries confer any  title on  him? It  would be obvious that all the entries were  got recorded in collusion with the appropriate authorities. Therefore,  the Government is not bound by such entries made.  Under these  circumstances, the learned Judge blissfully omitted  to consider  the relevant  provisions of law and  devoted 33 pages judgment on weed and has committed the gravest  error of  law in  reversing  the  judgment  and decrees of  the first  appellate and  the  trial  Court  and decreeing the suit.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgment  and decree of  the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is confirmed with costs throughout.