Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—This is a defendant’s second appeal arising out of suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents for injunction restraining defendant-appellant from interfering in possession as well as land should be treated to be out of land acquisition proceeding of property mentioned in the plaint in Schedule-A shown as Bhoomi No. 1, Rakba 0-8-15-0, No. 127 Rakba 0-14-0 No. 128 Rakba 2-19-0, No. 39 Rakba 1-2-10 A No. 40 Rakba 1-40-0, No. 41 Rakba 1-3-0. It was further stated in the plaint that property mentioned in Schedule-A and on the basis of notification issued by respondent No. 2 for the purposes of development by defendant No. 1 in 1977-78 but the District Magistrate up-till-date has not given any award and disputed land has not been acquired and possession has never been taken. Plaintiffs are in possession of said property being fact that there are various constructions. If award has not been given within a period of three years from the date of notification, it itself became free from proceeding. Further according to policy of the State Government, land in village Nagla Charandas, up to 240 ft. from Abadi is being exempted from acquisition. As defendant No. 1 started interfering, hence occasion arose for filing present suit.

2. Defendants filed their written statement denying claim and accepted in Para 20-Ka regarding allegation of paragraph-1 of plaint relating to award but their allegations have been denied and stated that said land has been acquired and after the gazette notification, possession has been taken. Therefore, plaintiff has got no right in the property in dispute and suit is barred by Sections 18 and 52 of the Land Acquisition Act and as proper notice under Section 80 of the Act has not been given, therefore, suit cannot proceed.

3. Trial Court framed various issues and one of the issues was (a) whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of the property (b) whether disputed land has been acquired and possession has been taken and if that is so what will be the effect. (c ) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear such matter and (d) whether suit is barred by Sections 18 and 52 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as (e) Whether suit is barred by Sections 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act as well as in view of allegations made in paragraph 3 (a) of the plaint, property in dispute has become out of land acquisition proceeding.

4. Trial Court after considering the issue of the parties has recorded a finding that this property has been acquired for the purposes of development in favour of defendant-appellant on the basis of publication on 12.1.1977 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Paper No. Ka-4 also shows that Tehsildar Dadri on behalf of Collector has given a certificate of possession in favour of defendant No. 1 on the basis of placing reliance upon a case reported in 1988 AWC, 450, findings have been recorded that Tehsildar or the nominee of the Collector went on spot and proclaimed to have obtained possession, may be a symbolic own, so far as the tenants, sub-tenants or licensees are concerned, that would constitute a sufficient act of taking possession on the spot within the meaning of Section 16 of the Act. After recording such finding, finding has been recorded that in view of statement of PW-1, Rajendra and PW-2 that they have admitted that property in dispute has been acquired, therefore, it can be inferred that possession has also been taken. An amendment application was filed on behalf of plaintiff stating therein that in 1982, State Government has made a policy to the effect that land which is being acquired in village Nagla Charandas, if there is an old Abadi, about 240 ft. land around will be left for the purposes of development of villages. A finding has also been recorded that this fact has never been disputed by defendants and this fact has been confirmed by Sri Kamal Kishore in his statement dated 20.2.1993 and according to him, map submitted shows that t