PRAHLAD SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 29-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1002 
PRAHLAD SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3779 of 2011) 
APRIL 29, 2011 
[G. S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 16 - Acquisition of 
appellants' land for the purpose of urbanization - Objections 
C filed. by the appellants - Award passed by the Land 
Acquisition Collector - Appellants filed writ petitions 
challenging the acquisition proceedings on various grounds 
including the violation of Regional Plan 2001 wherein the 
acquired land is shown as part of the Green Belt/Green 
D Wedge; and that the appellants were in continuous 
possession of the acquired land and were cultivating the 
same - Dismissal of the writ petitions holding that once the 
land vested in the State Government, the appellants did not 
have the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings - On 
E appeal, held: Section 16 lays down that once the Collector has 
made an award uls. 11, he can take possession of the 
acquired land - Simultaneously, the Section declares that 
upon taking possession by the Collector, the acquired land 
shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all 
F encumbrances - Vesting of land uls. 16 pre-supposes actual 
taking of possession and till that is done, legal presumption 
of vesting enshrined in s. 16 cannot be raised in favour of the 
acquiring authority - Documentary evidence showed that 
actual and physical possession of the acquired land is still 
with the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have not 
G placed any document before this Court to show that actual 
possession of the acquired land was taken on the particular 
date - Therefore, the High Court was not right in holding that 
the acquired land would be deemed to have vested in the 
H 
1002 
PRAHLAD SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 
1003 
ORS. 
State Government - Matter is remitted to the High Court for A 
disposal of the writ petition on merits. 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Delhi Auto and 
General Finance (Pvt.) Ltd. (1994) 4 SCC 42; Municipal 
Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development 
8 
and Investment Company (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501; C. 
Padma v .. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu 
(1997) 2 SCC 627; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah 
Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State 
of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698; Swaika Properties (P} Ltd. 
C 
v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 SCC 695; Sawaran Lata v. 
State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 532; Ba/want Narayan 
Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat (1976) 1 SCC 700; Balmokand 
Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab 
(1996) 4 SCC 212; P.K. Ka/burqi v. State of Karnataka (2005) 
12 SCC 489; NTPC v. Mahesh Dutta (2009) 8 SCC 339; Sita 
D 
Ram Bhandar Society v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2009) 10 SCC 
501; Omprakash Verma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 
13 SCC 158; Brij Pal Bhargava v State of UP. 2011 (2) 
SCALE 692; Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti 
Lal Agarwal decided by S.C. on 26.4.2011; Nahar Singh v. 
E 
State of U.P. (1996) 1 SCC 434 - referred to 
Case Law Reference: 
(1994) 4 sec 42 
Referred to 
Para 5 
F 
(1996) 11 sec so1 
Referred to 
Para 6, 19 
(1997) 2 sec 627 
Referred to 
Para 6, 20 
c2000) 2 sec 48 
Referred to 
Para 6, 21 
(1996) 11 sec 698 
Referred to 
Para 6 
G 
(2008) 4 sec 695 
Referred to 
Para 6, 22 
c2010) 4 sec s32 
Referred to 
Para 6, 23 
(1976) 1 sec 100 
Referred to 
Para 10 
H 
..... 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
(1996) 4 sec 212 
Referred to 
Para 11 
(2005) 12 sec 489 
Referred to 
Para 12 
(2009) 8 sec 339 
Referred to 
Para 13 
(2009) 1 o sec 501 
Referred to 
Para 14 
(2010) 13 sec 158 
Referred to 
Para 14 
2011 (2) SCALE 692 
Referred to 
Para 14 
(1996) 1 sec 434 
Referred to 
Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 
3779 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.05.2010 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W. (P) No. 
10396 of 2004. 
Rani Chhabra for the Appellants. 
Harikesh Singh for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
Whetherthe acquired land can be treated to have vested 
in the State· Government under Section 16 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") on the making of an 
G award by the Collector though the actual and physical 
possession continues with the landowner is the question which 
arises for consideration in this appeal filed against th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.