Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through LRs. & Others [C.A No.20982 of 2017] correctness of the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014 (3) SCC 183] has been doubted. The main issue is interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) and section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’).

87(l). In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra) also the observations have been made that it was not possible to take possession of the entire land in a day, cannot be accepted. The State is not going to put their own persons/ police/ or other officials to possess the land.

Thus the mode of taking possession by drawing Panchnama has been accepted in a large number of decisions, which appears to be the consistent view of this Court, and must prevail.

87(m). In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1989, this Court has observed that it would depend upon the facts of individual case whether possession has been taken or not. However, this Court had appointed a Commissioner in the said case to find out the possession on the spot and DVDs. and CDs were seen to hold that landowners were in possession. District Judge, Indore, recorded the statements of the tenure-holders, which were referred to by this Court in the said judgment. Said decision has to be treated as confined to its own facts, as the mode adopted for determining the possession by the help of Commissioner is doubtful. The Commissioner could not have determined the factum of possession. It is the function of the court and this cannot abdicate to Commissioner its function. Even under Order XXVII CPC function of Commissioner is not to determine possession and once possession has been taken, whether there was re-entry or trespass had not been examined in the said case. However, statements recorded by the District Judge were also taken into consideration in Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra). The decision in said case is to be taken as confined to the facts and cannot be said to be of universal application. Subsequent DVD/CD are not going to establish whether possession, in fact, was taken earlier. Such mode of determining the possession by subsequent material is not of much value as there can be re-entry in possession after possession had been taken. In the decision of Banda Development Authority (supra), it appears that the law laid down has been properly discussed and propositions have been laid down properly.