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.