1. Suit for recovery of possession of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following payment of compensation and vesting of title in the State. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 366
1996(2) SUPREME 627
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Puttu Lal (dead) by LRs. -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2478 of 1977
Decided on 14-2-1996
Important Points
Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vests in the State free from all encumbrances upon payment of compensation under Section 16. This extinguishes the previous owner's right, title, and interest, rendering subsequent claims by auction purchasers under other laws invalid.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Acquisition of Land for Public Purpose
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 6-Notification and declaration made in 1928-Acquisition became final and compensation was paid to owner of land-Land stood vested in State-Appellant claiming title under U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1955 was rightly held by High Court not capable of questioning the correctness of acquisition made in 1928. (Paras 2 and 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether title obtained through auction under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1955, prevails over title vested in the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 3 )
3. Acquisition of land and taking of possession under the Land Acquisition Act extinguishes the previous owner's title, vesting absolute ownership in the State. (Para 3 )
4. Land vested in the State under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is held free from all encumbrances. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does the vesting of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, extinguish the previous owner's title?
Yes. Once land is acquired under the Act and possession is taken, the right, title, and interest of the previous owner are extinguished, and the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Can a purchaser under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1955, claim title to land already acquired by the State?
No. Because the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances upon acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, the State becomes the absolute owner, overriding subsequent claims based on encumbered estate proceedings. (Para 3 )
8. Can the validity of a land acquisition be challenged after a significant period of time?
The court held that the correctness of an acquisition made in 1928 cannot be questioned after such a long duration. (Para 3 )
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated July 15, 1976 made in Civil First Appeal No. 11/65. The State filed the suit for recovery of possession of property from the respondents pursuant to the orders passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The civil Court dismissed the suit but on appeal the High Court allowed the same.
2. The admitted facts are that the land originally belonged to Smt. Kokilla. Notification under Secction 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on April 15, 1928 and declaration under Section 6 was published on July 28, 1928 acquiring the land known as Phulwari for public purpose, namely, for construction of the quarters for the constables of Police outpost Misrana. That acquisition has become final. Now, the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that compensation was paid to Smt. Kokila and, therefore, the land stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances.
3. The contention raised by the appellant is that the proceedings were taken under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1955 and the property was declared to be encumbered estate. As a consequence, the title of the appellant s predecessor was upheld. He being the purchaser at an auction is entitled to the possession by virtue of his title. We find no force in the contention. Having acquired the land under the provisions of the Act and the possession having been taken thereunder, the right, title and interest held by Smt. Kokilla stood extinguished and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the State is the absolute owner. The State, being the owner, is entitled to file the suit for possession. The High Court, therefore, has rightly found that the appellants at this distance of time cannot question the correctness of the acquisition made in 1928.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
*******
