LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SADHU RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A v. SADHU RAM JULY 25, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 11, 16 and 48 (1). Evidence Act, 1872: Section 116. c Land Acquisition-Award-Co111pensation to ersflvhile 01vners-Sub- sequently respondent co111ing in possession of land as lessee on yearly basis-Respondent purchasing land from erstwhile owners-Suit filed by respondelll for a declaration that he was equitable owner of land-Suit dismissed by Tiial Cowt and First Appellate Cowt-But suit decreed by High Court-Appeal prefeJTed by State-Held consequent upon passing the award D and taking possession of land, title and interest of erstwhile 01vners stood extinguished and Govenunent beca111e absolute owner of lan~Thereafter unless the title is conferred on any person in accordance with a procedure kno1v11 to law, no one can c/ainz any title 111uch less equitable title by re111aining in possession-High Co1ut conunitted the gravest e1Tor of law in E reversing the judgment and decrees of the first appellate and the tiial Coult and decreeing the suit-Respondent held estopped ftvm denying the title of Govenunent-Entlies niade in revenue records with collusion of approp1iate autho1ities held not binding 0'1 Govenunent. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8373 of F 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.91 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 28 of 1983. Manoj Swamp for the Appellants. G Shashi Bhushan, (Pramod Dayal), (NP) for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of H 41 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R. A High Court of the Punjab & Haryana made on October 10, 1991 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 respon- dent is an equitable owner of the lands and directing the appellant to deliver possession of the lands to the erstwhile o\',ners. B c 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 ftled the D 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 E F owners. The learned Judge having noticed the procedure prescribed in dis- posal 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 owners. 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 right, title and interest in respect of the acquired land. Before the possession G 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 of the property free from all encumbrances, unless the title is conferred on H any person in accordance with a procedure known to law, no one can claim .. • -- ~ STATE v.SADHURAM 43 any title much less equitable title by remaining in possession
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.