1995 JTR(SC) 765
1998 1 CTC 180 ; 1995 4 CurCC(SC) 398 ; 1996 61 DLT 193 ; 1998 DNJ 143 ; 1997 10 JT 580 ; 1998 2 MLJ 19 ; 1995 4 Scale 768 ; 1997 4 Scale 768 ; 1995 5 SCC 335 ; 1995 Supp2 SCR 421 ; 1995 2 UJ 619
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
MAHAVIR AND ANOTHER
Versus
RURAL INSTITUTE, AMRAVATI AND ANOTHER
SLPs (C) Nos. 14430-32 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 11-10-1994 of the Bombay High Court in Second As. Nos. 146-47 & 150 of 1982},
Decided on 28-7-1995
Advocates appeared:
Nikhil Nayyar and T.V.S.N. Chari, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Sales made after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are void, and the State acquires the right, title, and interest in the property free from all encumbrances.
Act
Referred
:LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4(1), S.16
LIMITATION ACT : Art.65
(A) The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29-1-1957 rendered subsequent sales of the property by the original owner void, as transfers made after such notification do not bind the State. Section 16 of the Act operates to extinguish the original owner's title and vest the right, title, and interest in the State free from all encumbrances, while Article 65 of the Limitation Act bars any challenge to the acquisition after the benefit of decrees passed. The possession taken by the State and handed to a third party, coupled with the conclusive nature of the panchnama, confirms completion of acquisition, negating any claim of adverse possession by the petitioners.
(B) The core legal principles are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act effectively vests title in the State and renders any subsequent private sale ineffective; Section 16 ensures the State acquires the property free from encumbrances; and once possession is taken and decrees are passed, the claim of adverse possession cannot arise unless specifically pleaded and proved.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29-1-1957. The owner sold the properties to the petitioners on 11-6-1957 and 22-8-1958. A declaration under Section 6 was published on 14-8-1958. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were served on 23-9-1958, an award was made on 9-10-1959, and possession was taken on 18-11-1959, completing the acquisition. The petitioners later filed suits claiming title by adverse possession, which was rejected by all courts.
Findings of Court:
The court found that sales made after the notification under Section 4(1) are void and the State is not bound by them. The title of the original owner stood extinguished, and the State acquired the property free from encumbrances under Section 16. The possession was complete and conclusive, and the claim of adverse possession was negatived as the petitioners failed to prove continuous assertion against the knowledge of the third respondent society.
Issues:
Whether the sales made after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are valid, whether the State is bound by such sales, whether the petitioners acquired any title by adverse possession, and whether the court interference is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act extinguishes the original owner's title and vests it in the State, rendering subsequent private sales void. Section 16 ensures the State acquires the property free from encumbrances, and completion of possession and decree bars any claim of adverse possession.
Result:
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, and the decrees passed by the Bombay High Court in SAs Nos. 146, 147 and 150 of 1982 dated 11-10-1994 are upheld without interference.
(A) The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29-1-1957 rendered subsequent sales of the property by the original owner void, as transfers made after such notification do not bind the State. Section 16 of the Act operates to extinguish the original owner's title and vest the right, title, and interest in the State free from all encumbrances, while Article 65 of the Limitation Act bars any challenge to the acquisition after the benefit of decrees passed. The possession taken by the State and handed to a third party, coupled with the conclusive nature of the panchnama, confirms completion of acquisition, negating any claim of adverse possession by the petitioners.
(B) The core legal principles are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act effectively vests title in the State and renders any subsequent private sale ineffective; Section 16 ensures the State acquires the property free from encumbrances; and once possession is taken and decrees are passed, the claim of adverse possession cannot arise unless specifically pleaded and proved.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29-1-1957. The owner sold the properties to the petitioners on 11-6-1957 and 22-8-1958. A declaration under Section 6 was published on 14-8-1958. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were served on 23-9-1958, an award was made on 9-10-1959, and possession was taken on 18-11-1959, completing the acquisition. The petitioners later filed suits claiming title by adverse possession, which was rejected by all courts.
Findings of Court:
The court found that sales made after the notification under Section 4(1) are void and the State is not bound by them. The title of the original owner stood extinguished, and the State acquired the property free from encumbrances under Section 16. The possession was complete and conclusive, and the claim of adverse possession was negatived as the petitioners failed to prove continuous assertion against the knowledge of the third respondent society.
Issues:
Whether the sales made after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are valid, whether the State is bound by such sales, whether the petitioners acquired any title by adverse possession, and whether the court interference is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act extinguishes the original owner's title and vests it in the State, rendering subsequent private sales void. Section 16 ensures the State acquires the property free from encumbrances, and completion of possession and decree bars any claim of adverse possession.
Result:
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, and the decrees passed by the Bombay High Court in SAs Nos. 146, 147 and 150 of 1982 dated 11-10-1994 are upheld without interference.
NIKHIL NAYAR, T.V.S.N.Chari
ORDER
1. 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 29-1-1957 and thereafter the owner sold the properties to the petitioners on 11-6-1957 and 22-8-1958. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 14-8-1958. 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 Sections 9 and 10 was served on 23-9-1958 and award was made on 9-10-1959 and possession was taken on 18-11-1959. 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 panchnama 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 third 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 third respondent, the petitioners have asserted their own right to the knowledge of the third respondent and it had acquiesced in it and remained in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment, nec vi, nec lam and nec pre carlo. That was not the case. Therefore, they cannot have any semblance of right by prescription. It is rather unfortunate that the State filed a suit for possession. They should have resorted to summary 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 SAs Nos. 146, 147 and 150 of 1982 dated 11-10-1994 of Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench.
2. The SLPs are accordingly dismissed.
For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 335