Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

...

9. From the above narrated facts it is clear that a paper/symbolic possession was taken in respect of the excess land not from the writ petitioner, who was the owner and also not http://www.judis.nic.in from the mother of the writ petitioner, who was residing in the very same land and delivery of possession was recorded from writ petitioner's sister, who was not given any authority to deliver possession. Thus, the possession allegedly taken/recorded in the file is in contravention of Section 11(5) of the Act. Further Section 11(6) of the Act states that actual possession should be taken. In this case, the land is in actual possession of the writ petitioner and the Corporation of Chennai also granted demolition permission and excess land is inside the compound land, which goes to show that actual possession of the land is with the writ petitioner and not with the appellant department."