SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 765

K.RAMASWAMY, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
Mahavir – Appellant
Versus
Rural Institute, Amravati – Respondent


Advocates:
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. co


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top