Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paraspar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti vs The State Of M.P. & Ors. on 10 January, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.1050/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10th OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No.1050 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
1. PARASPAR GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI
MARYADIT, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE M.P. CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIEITIES ACT, 1960, HAVING IT'S OFFICE
AT 28/13, SOUTH T.T. NAGAR, BHOPAL,
DISTRICT BHOPAL, THROUGH IT'S
PRESIDENT, SHRIMATI PREMLATA
AGARWAL WIFE OF SHRI J.C. AGARWAL,
RESIDENT OF C/O 28/13, SOUTH T.T. NAGAR,
BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. PREMLATA AGARWAL W/O SHRI J.C
AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PARASPAR GRIH NIRMAN
SAHKARI SAMIKTI BHOPAL R/O 28/13,
SOUTH T.T. NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI KARAMJEET SINGH WADHWA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COMPETENT AUTHORITY (URBAN LAND
CEILING) DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2 W.P. No.1050/2000
4. NAZUL OFFICER BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DAULATRAM S/O KEWAL RAM, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST CHUNA-BHATTI BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. ASHA RAM S/O MOOL CHAND, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
CHUNA-BHATTI BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4/STATE BY SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN -
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6)
............................................................................................................................................
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
"(i) That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned orders Annexure P/13 and
(ii) That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be further pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, to reinstate the petitioner Society by handing-
over possession of disputed land bearing Khasra nos. 54-55/1/2 and 54-55/2 situated at village Chuna Bhatti, Tehsil-Huzur, Bhopal;
(iii) That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be further pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to reconstruct the development work, demolished and uprooted by them at their own costs or 3 W.P. No.1050/2000 may order payment of adequate compensation;
(iv) That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be further pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition, restraining the respondents, from interferring with the possession of the petitioner Society, after reinstating it by restoring 'status-quo-ante'.
(v) Costs of the instant case, through-out, may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and
(vi) May grant any other appropriate writ, order of direction, which this Hon'ble High Court, may deem just and proper, in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner is a registered co- operative Society registered under M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The dispute pertains to land bearing khasra No.54-55/1/2 and 54-55/2 admeasuring 1.37 and 1.63 acres situated in village Chuna Bhatti, Tahsil and District Bhopal. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act, 1976') came into force with effect from 09/09/1976 and at that time, Daulatram S/o Late Shri Kevalram and Asharam S/o Mool Chand were recorded as Bhumiswami of khasra Nos.54/1, 55/1, 58/2, 34 and 105/37. Although the aforesaid land was under actual cultivation and therefore, Daulatram and Asharam were not required to submit a statement under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976, yet by way of abundant precaution, they submitted a statement under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976 stating that they do not possess any vacant land. Khasra panchshala was also submitted. It is the case of petitioners that in view of provisions of Section 2(O) & 2(Q) of Act, 1976, competent Authority/ respondent No.3 should have accepted the submissions made by Daulatram and 4 W.P. No.1050/2000 Asharam, but respondent No.3 directed the Revenue Inspector to enquire and submit his report. Revenue Inspector submitted its report dated 13/01/1983 informing that land bearing khasra Nos. 54-55/1/2 and 54-55/2 have already been sold to the petitioners and remaining land is being cultivated by Daulatram and Asharam. Accordingly, respondent No.3 should not have declared the disputed land as vacant without any notice to the petitioner Society. It is further submitted that without ascertaining whether notices, which were issued to Daulatram and Asharam, were served or not and without applying its mind, the competent Authority proceeded ex parte against Daulatram and Asharam and directed for issuance of draft statement under Section 8 of Act, 1976 and no date was fixed for further action. It is the claim of petitioners that Daulatram and Asharam with a malafide intention to obtain compensation, did not inform about the pendency of case to petitioners despite of the fact that the land in question was already sold to petitioners by Asharam and Daulatram.
3. It is the case of petitioners that petitioners had obtained land use certificate on 31/03/1982 from competent Authority of Town and Country Planning Department. Petitioner Society also got its name recorded in the revenue record as Bhumiswami and Bhu-Adhikar and Rin-Pustika were also issued and the name of petitioner was also mutated in the revenue record. The land was under actual cultivation at the time of enforcement of provisions of Act, 1976 and therefore, it was not covered under the provisions of said Act as Asharam and Daulatram were exempted from the operation of provisions of Act, 1976. However, by impugned order dated 30/05/1984, respondent No.3 issued draft statement under Section 8 of Act, 1976. As per note-sheet of the 5 W.P. No.1050/2000 competent Authority, notices of draft statement issued under Section 8 of Act, 1976 were sent to Asharam and Daulatram by registered Post which were returned back with a note that they have refused to accept the same and accordingly, the case was fixed for issuance of final statement. Accordingly, by order dated 19/03/1987, a final statement under Section 9 of Act, 1976 was issued declaring 17,803.45 sq.mtr. of land as excess and a copy of the same was sent to Asharam and Daulatram. It appears that in spite of service of final statement issued under Section 9 of Act, 1976, no objection was filed and accordingly, proceedings under Section 10 of Act, 1976 were initiated. It is submitted that respondent No.3 was already aware of the fact that land has already been sold to petitioners and therefore, petitioners were necessary party and under these circumstances, should not have proceeded further under the Act, 1976. It is further submitted that adjoining land was purchased by another Society named as Hindustan Housing Co-operative Society Bhopal and the similar order was challenged by said Society by filing W.P. No.1053/1997, which according to petitioner, was pending for disposal. It is further submitted that actual possession was never taken by the Authorities and in fact, petitioners were in cultivating possession of the same.
4. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed their return. It is submitted that Section 5(3) of Act, 1976 specifically prohibits transfer of vacant land till publication of notification under Section 10(1) of Act, 1976. The Act, 1976 came into effect from 09/09/1976. Land was purchased by petitioners in the year 1982, whereas proceedings were already initiated much prior thereto. Respondents No.5 & 6, namely Asharam and Daulatram who were the owners of land in question had submitted a 6 W.P. No.1050/2000 statement under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976 on 01/04/1979 i.e. much prior to sale of land to the petitioners. Thus, it is clear that proceedings under the Act, 1976 were pending and during the said proceedings, property was purchased by petitioners. Therefore, even otherwise sale was prohibited under Section 5 of Act, 1976. It is further submitted that after submission of statement under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976, a case No.A- 90/C-1/165/81 was registered in relation to respondent No.5 and case No.A-90/C-1/166/81 was registered in relation to respondent No.6 and notices were issued to respondents No.5 & 6 respectively which were duly served. Respondents have also filed copy of acknowledgment of receipt of notices by Daulatram and Asharam. As per service report, Daulatram had personally received the notice whereas notice issued to Asharam was affixed on his house. Thereafter, respondents No.5 & 6 did not make their appearance and they decided to remain absent and accordingly, they were proceeded ex parte and draft statement under Section 8 of Act, 1976 was issued. Copy of draft statement issued under Section 8 of Act, 1976 was sent to respondents No.5 & 6 by registered mode which was received by respondents No.5 & 6 and the acknowledgment of receipt of registered post by Daulatram has been filed as Annexure-R/7 whereas acknowledgment of receipt of draft statement under Section 8 of Act, 1976 which was sent to Asharam by registered post has been filed as Annexure-R/8. No objections were made by respondents No.5 & 6 and accordingly, final statement under Section 9 of Act, 1976 was passed and 17803.45 sq.mtr. of land was declared to be in excess of ceiling limit. Copy of final statement under Section 9 of Act, 1976 was sent to respondents No.5 & 6 which was duly received by respondents No.5 and 6 and no objection was 7 W.P. No.1050/2000 submitted by them within the stipulated time and accordingly, proceedings under Section 10(1) of Act, 1976 were initiated and the matter was registered as case No.54/87 in relation to respondent No.5 and case No.30/87 in relation to respondent No.6. Thereafter, an order under Section 10(1) of Act, 1976 was issued for publication of the same in the Gazette and also in two daily newspapers. Notification dated 13/07/1987 was passed in respect of respondent No.6 and notification dated 27/04/1987 was passed in respect of respondent No.5. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(3) of Act, 1976 was issued and no objection was received and accordingly, an order under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 was issued and Tehsildar, Nazul was directed to take over the possession of excess land. Possession in relation to khasra No.54-55/1/2 admeasuring 1.37 acres was taken on 29/02/1992 and possession in relation to land bearing khasra No.54-55/2 was taken on 13/02/2000. Kabjanama (document of possession) dated 29/02/1992 and 13/02/2000 have been filed as Annexures-R/11 & R/12.
5. Thus, it is the case of respondents No.1 to 4 that possession of land in dispute was taken on 29/02/1992 and 13/02/2000. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 11 of Act, 1976 were initiated. Case No.64/93-94 was registered in respect of respondent No.5 and case No.21/93-94 was registered in respect of respondent No.6 and compensation of Rs.17,803.45 was assessed. It is submitted by counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 that so far as the claim of petitioners that notices should have been issued to them is concerned, the same is misconceived because respondents No.5 & 6 had submitted their statement under Section 6 of the Act, 1976 sometimes in the year 1979 whereas land was purchased by petitioners from respondents No.5 & 6 8 W.P. No.1050/2000 in the year 1982. In the light of Section 5 of Act, 1976, such transaction is illegal. So far as the reliance of petitioner on the report of Revenue Inspector which has been filed as Annexure-P/4 is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon because that report was submitted on an application submitted under Section 24 of Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 for colonizing license. Thus, it is the case of respondents that report submitted by Revenue Inspector has no relevance so far as proceedings under Act, 1976 are concerned. It is further claimed that respondent No.3 has not granted any No Objection Certificate in relation to land in dispute and No Objection Certificate relied upon by petitioners (Annexure-P/8) has no relevance so far as present case is concerned. It is clear from No Objection Certificate (Annexure P-8) that it was passed in relation to other land which is not the subject matter of dispute in question, therefore reliance of petitioners on NOC issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-8) is misconceived and was filed with a deliberate intention to mislead the Court. Furthermore, petitioners had obtained the colonizing license and other proceedings relating to development of colony on the land in dispute without disclosing the factum of pendency of ceiling proceedings and therefore, if any such orders are passed, they are irrelevant in the light of Section 5 of the Act, 1976.
6. Petitioners have filed their rejoinder. It is submitted that petitioner and other similarly situated housing co-operative societies formed a Federation called 'Federation of Housing Cooperative Societies of Chunabhatti, Bhopal' with the object of collectively pursuing their cause. An application of Federation for diversion of land use was allowed. Federation also applied to respondent No.2 for grant of 9 W.P. No.1050/2000 permission to develop its land which was granted vide order dated 04/07-10-1995. Thereafter, letter dated 23/11/1983 was issued by respondent No.3 mentioning that land of Federation was exempted from the application of provisions of Act, 1976. It is further submitted that no actual physical possession was ever taken by respondents and possession panchanama was ex parte from respondents No.5 & 6. Payment of compensation to respondents No.5 & 6 has no relevance because respondents No.5 & 6 had already relinquished their right in favour of petitioners. It was further claimed that since petitioners are bonafide purchasers, therefore declaration of the land in excess of ceiling limit is bad in law.
7. None appears for respondents No.5 & 6 though served.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. To understand the real controversy, following facts are necessary:-
(i) Daulatram and Asharam were the owners of land bearing khasra No.54-55/1/2 and 54-55/2.
(ii) In the year 1979, respondents No.5 & 6 submitted their statement under Section 6 of Act, 1976.
(iii) Case No.A-90/C-1/165/81 was registered in relation to respondent No.5.
(iv) Case No.A-90/C-1/166/81 was registered in relation to respondent No.6.
(v) On 26/04/1982, property in dispute was purchased by petitioners.10 W.P. No.1050/2000
10. Thus, it is clear that property was purchased by petitioners during the pendency of proceedings under the Act, 1976. Even during the course of arguments, this fact was fairly conceded by counsel for petitioners.
11. Section 5 of Act, 1976 reads as under:-
"5. Transfer of vacant land.- (1) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, where any person who had held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act, has transferred such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the extent of the land so transferred shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person and the excess vacant land in relation to such person shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be selected out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer and in case the entire excess vacant land cannot be so selected, the balance, or, where no vacant land is held by him after the transfer, the entire excess vacant land, shall be selected out of the vacant land held by the transferee:
Provided that where such person has transferred his vacant land to more than one person, the balance, or, as the case may be, the entire excess vacant land aforesaid, shall be selected out of the vacant land held by each of the transferees in the same proportion as the area of the vacant land transferred to him bears to the total area of the land transferred to all the transferees.
(2) Where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under sub-section (1), the transfer of the excess vacant 11 W.P. No.1050/2000 land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void.
(3) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance and in any State which adopts this Act under clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution, no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this Act shall transfer any such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until he has furnished a statement under section 6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section (1) of section 10; and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void."
12. Thus, it is clear from the plain reading of Section 5(3) of Act, 1976 that no person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit immediately before commencement of Act, 1976, shall transfer any such land or part thereof until he has furnished a statement under Section 6 of Act, 1976 and a notification regarding excess land held by him has been published under Section 10(1) of Act, 1976 and any transaction / transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void.
13. Admittedly, respondents No.5 and 6 had submitted their statement under Section 6 of Act, 1976 in the year 1979 whereas, final orders under Section 10(1) of Act, 1976 of land in dispute were passed on 13/07/1987 and 27/04/1987. Since petitioners had purchased the land in dispute vide sale-deeds dated 26/04/1982 i.e. subsequent to filing of statements by respondents No.5 & 6 under Section 6 of Act, 1976 and prior to passing of order under Section 10(1) of Act, 1976, therefore in 12 W.P. No.1050/2000 the light of Section 5(3) of Act, 1976, such sale transactions are null and void. In view of Section 5(3) of Act, 1976 petitioners were not necessary party. Furthermore, Section 5(1) and 5(2) of Act, 1976 takes care of any such eventuality. Since petitioners had purchased the property in dispute in contravention of Section 5(3) of Act, 1976, therefore sale-deeds executed in their favour on 26/04/1982 are null and void and under these circumstances, petitioners were not the necessary party.
14. So far as the question of taking of actual possession is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1239 has held as under :-
"4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17- 4-1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession."
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A.Viswam (Dead) by LRs. reported in AIR 1996 SC 3377 has held as under :-
13 W.P. No.1050/2000"9. It is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or Panchnama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not cooperate in taking possession of the land."
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 501 has held as under :-
"28 A cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments would reveal that while taking possession, symbolic and notional possession is perhaps not envisaged under the Act but the manner in which possession is taken must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case. Keeping this broad principle in mind, this Court in T.N. Housing Board v. A. Viswam [(1996) 8 SCC 259 : AIR 1996 SC 3377] after considering the judgment in Narayan Bhagde case [(1976) 1 SCC 700] , observed that while taking possession of a large area of land (in this case 339 acres) a pragmatic and realistic approach had to be taken. This Court then examined the context under which the judgment in Narayan Bhagde case [(1976) 1 SCC 700] had been rendered and held as under: (Viswam case [(1996) 8 SCC 259 : AIR 1996 SC 3377] , SCC p. 262, para 9) "9. It is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or panchnama by the LAO in the 14 W.P. No.1050/2000 presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not be cooperative in taking possession of the land."
29. In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [(1996) 4 SCC 212 : AIR 1996 SC 1239] yet again the question was as to the taking over of the possession of agricultural land and it was observed thus: (SCC p. 215, para 4) "4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4-1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession."
30. It would, thus, be seen from a cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments, that while taking possession of a large area of land with a large number of owners, it would be impossible 15 W.P. No.1050/2000 for the Collector or the revenue official to enter each bigha or biswa and to take possession thereof and that a pragmatic approach has to be adopted by the Court. It is also clear that one of the methods of taking possession and handing it over to the beneficiary Department is the recording of a panchnama which can in itself constitute evidence of the fact that possession had been taken and the land had vested absolutely in the Government."
17. Thus, it is clear that one of the permissible modes of taking possession is by preparing possession panchanama. Thus, it cannot be said that possession of surplus land was not taken by respondents.
18. So far as the contention of petitioners that they are still in possession of the land in dispute is concerned, it is suffice to mention that the same will not confer any title.
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Land & Building Department through Secretary and Another Vs. Attro Devi and others decided on 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2749/2023 has held as under :-
"12. The issue as to what is meant by "possession of the land by the State after its acquisition" has also been considered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra). It is opined therein that after the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically 16 W.P. No.1050/2000 occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the land or any reentry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:
"244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word "possession" has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression "physical possession" is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and Section 24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the possession in any other form. When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances.17 W.P. No.1050/2000
245. The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the expression "physical possession" used in Section 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant only physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re- entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real 18 W.P. No.1050/2000 owner that is the State Government in the case.
xxxx
256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16, takes place after various steps, such as, notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice under Section 9, award under Section 11 and then possession. The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the state becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no control of the landowner over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner."
(emphasis supplied)"
19 W.P. No.1050/200020. Thus, it is clear that once the land has vested in the State Government, then the possession of the person would be that of an encroacher only and he cannot claim adverse possession also. Furthermore, Daulatram and Asharam have not challenged the proceedings.
21. So far as the contention of petitioners that since Daulatram and Asharam had alienated the property, therefore they were not filing their objections with an oblique motive to receive compensation amount is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that petitioners may take legal recourse against Daulatram and Asharam but no relief can be granted to petitioners for the reasons mentioned above.
22. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.02.07 15:17:41 +05'30'