BALWANT NARAYAN BHAGDE versus M. D. BHAGWAT & ORS.

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 23-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
250 
A 
BALWANT NARAYAN BHAGDE 
v. 
M. D. BHAGWAT & ORS. 
April 23, 1975 
B 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) ss. 9(1), 17(1) and 48(1)-Possession 
taken of acquired land--Occupant resurnir1g possession-Effect of-If Govern-
nient can withdraiv /ro1n the acquisition. 
For the purpose of acquiring land for an Agricultural College a notification 
was issued under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in January 1959, 
with respect to several pieces of land one of which belonged to the res-
pondents and was in possession of the appellant as tenant. 
After the issue 
of the notification. under s. 6, in February 1959, the Commissioner directed 
that possession of that land may be taken Under s. 17 ( 1) on the exJriry of 
15 days from the publication of the notice under s. 9(1). 
On March 24, 
1959, the appellant :flled a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer. 
In that statement, he did not deny the publication of notice on the spot 
under s. 9( 1) nor did he put any impediment to the taking of the land. 
He 
merely wanted the compensation amount to be paid to him and wanted 
stay of the taking possession of his house on the Iand. 
The Land Acquisition 
Officer passed orders in the presence· of the appellant directing the Tnhsildar 
to take possession of the land and hand it over to the Principal of the 
Agricultural College. 
The Tahsildar went to the spot, inspected the land for 
the purpose of deter:mining \vhat part was waste and arable and should 
therefore be taken possession of and took possession of the land, leaving 
out the small portion containing the house of the appellant, and handed over 
possession of the land so taken over to the Principal of the Agriculturai 
Coilege. The appellant was not present at the time when the Tahsildar took 
posiession. There was, thereafter, corrcsnondence between the appellant and 
the Government. and various reports had been made by the officers of 
the Government and on April 16, 1959, 
a 
stay 
order 
\Vas 
passed 
by 
the Government. 
On December 13, 1961, the Land Acquisition ·Officer 
wrote to the Commissioner that pos_session of the land was still \Vith the 
appellant. and on August 8, 1968, withdrawal from the acquisition of that 
part of the land under s .. 48(1) of the Act, was directed by the Commis-
sioner. 
The respondents and the Agricultural College filed writ petitions in the 
High Court, challenging the release of the land. 
The High Court a11owed 
the petitions holing that 
posse~ion of the land was taken 
(even though 
the Government took the stand that thev had taken onlv 'svmbolical' oosse-~sion) 
and given to the Principal of the College and that, therefore, it was not 
open to the Commissioner to withdraw from the acquisition under s. 48 ( 1) 
as amended by the Land Acquisition (Maharashtra Extension and Amendment) 
Act. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
H 
HELD : ·(Per Curiam) : Neither the Government nor the Comn1issionet 
could withdraw under s. 48(1) from the acquisition of any portion of the land 
v1hich had been taken over by and vested in the Government. 
[253-El 
(Per P. N. Bhagv;'ati and A. C. Gupta JJ) : When Government proceeds 
to take possession of the land acquired by it under the Act. it must take 
actual posses:ion since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by 
it, and there is no question of taking 'symbolical' possession as understood 
~·-
i 
-
.. 
' I 
B. N. BHAGDE V. M. D. BHAGWAT 
under the C.P.C. 
Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. 
How 
such actual possession may be taken would depend on the nature of land. 
It is not an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and 
making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to 
constitute taking possession of land in every case. 
It is also not strictly 
necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given 
to the owner or occupant of -the land that possession would be taken at a 
particular time, though it· may be desirable to do so in order to eliminate 
the possibility of a fraudulent or collusive transaction of taking of mere 
paper possession, without the occupant or the owner ever knowing- about 
it. 
[252E-H, 253A·Bl 
On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tahsildar had 
taken actual possession of that part of the land which was waste or arable 
and handed it over to the Principal of the College. 
The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.