MOHAMMED Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P5 notice of the first respondent directing him to stop constructions in his property. This is a case where petitioner had filed O.P. 10321 of 1988 and obtained stay of dispossession on the ground that his property is not included in the notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He contends that even if the property is included in the notification and is held liable to be acquired, the said notice is illegal and cannot be enforced as the property has not vested in the Government so far since possession was not taken by the Government.

(2.) It is common case that this Court by Ext. P-4 order stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the property. In Ext. P-5 it is admitted that the petitioner could not be dispossessed from the property in view of the stay granted by this Court in O.P. 10321 of 1988.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that the Government have not obtained possession of the property and so the first respondent cannot prohibit him from effecting any improvements thereon. S.16 postulates that when the Collector has made an award under S.11 he can take possession of land which then would vest absolutely in the Government from all encumbrances. Dispossession of the property pursuant to the acquisition proceedings is very crucial for vesting it in the Government. The effect of S.16,17 and 48 is that it is only on taking of possession of the property that it vests in the Government. As the petitioner was not divested of his possession of the property, it has to be necessarily held that there was no vesting of the property in the Government.