URMILA Vs. H P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:-

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that admittedly the H.P. Housing Board approached the State for acquisition of land for setting up of a Housing Board Colony in Bilaspur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of the land was issued on 27.4.1978. Award Was announced on 16.7.1984. Most of the land was taken over except the land in possession of respondent No. 1 which he had purchased from respondent No. 2 measuring 0-5 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 158/1 (old) corresponding to Khasra No. 693/1 (new), Tahsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur. It was alleged that at the time of notification under Section 4 there was no structure on the land but at the time of the taking over the possession there was structure erected by defendant No.l. A sale deed was executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No.l on 13.09.1982, after notification under Section 4 was issued.

(3.) The Housing Board first filed a petition for recovery of the disputed land under the H.P. Public Premises (Land Eviction and Land Recovery Act), 1971 but that application was rejected and thereafter the Housing Board filed the suit for possession of the land. The suit was contested on the ground that in fact the land had been purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the year 1975 and there no notice was issued to defendant No. 1 and the other ground taken was that since the State had not taken over possession of the land in terms of Section 16 of the Act the suit itself was not maintainable. The trial Court held that once the award is announced the Collector is to take possession of the acquired land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was only thereafter that the suit land would have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. It was held that without physical delivery of possession the acquired land cannot vest in the State Government even after announcement of the award. Therefore, the Housing Board was not held owner of the suit land and it had no right to claim possession. Appeal was filed by the Housing Board, which was allowed by the learned District Judge who held that since the land had been validly acquired and compensation paid to defendant No. 2 the defendants had no right to object to the possession being handed over to the Housing Board. He came to the conclusion that the defendant No. 1 was a trespasser on the suit land and had constructed the house during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, he had no right to remain in possession of the land. He also held that the suit land was part of Khasra No. 158 and since admittedly the possession of the remaining land had been taken over, the possession of the suit property had also been symbolically taken over.