Case: Prahlad Singh  Vs. Union Of India

Verma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) and Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 1 SCC 434 , this Court laid down the following principles: "i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession.iii) If crop is standing on the acquired on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken.iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document.v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken." 16. If the present case is examined in the light of the facts which have been brought on record and the principles laid down in the judgment in Banda Development Authoritys case, it is not possible to sustain the finding and conclusion recorded by the High Court that the acquired land had vested in the State Government because the actual and physical possession of the acquired land always remained with the appellants and no evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that possession was taken by preparing a panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses and their signatures were obtained on the panchnama. 17. A reading of the Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandis, copies of which have been placed on record, shows that actual and physical possession of the acquired land is still with the appellants. Jamabandis relate to the year 2005-2006. Copies of notice dated 10/11.2.2011 issued by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. relates to appellant No.1 - Prahlad Singh and this, prima facie, supports the appellants assertion that physical possession of the land is still with them. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have not placed any document before this Court to show that actual possession of the acquired land was taken on the particular date. Therefore, the High Court was not right in recording a finding that the acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the State Government. 18. The judgments, which have been referred to in the impugned order really do not have any bearing on the case in hand because in all those cases, the Court had found that possession of the acquired land had been taken. 19. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings on the ground of delay. The facts of that case were that after preparation of the draft development plan for G Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, notification dated 6.7.1972 was issued under Section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for the acquisition of land needed for implementing the development plan. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were in possession of the land as tenants, filed claim for compensation. They were heard by the competent authority in 1979. In the meanwhile, the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 was enacted by the State Legislature and notifications were issued under that Act. In 1979, City Survey No.503 was de-reserved from the earlier public purpose of locating the extension of Dharavi Sewage Purification Plant and the entire land was to be utilized for residential, commercial, para-commercial and social facilities by the local residents of the area. After the award was made by the Collector, possession of the acquired land was taken. The respondents filed writ petition after lapse of four years from the date of taking possession. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition but the Division Bench allowed the appeal. This Court held that once the award was passed and possession was taken, the High Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award. 20. In C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Court held that once the acquired land vested in the State Government and compensation was paid after taking possession, the appellant was not entitled to question the acquisition proceedings. 21. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (supra), this Court reversed the judgment of the Bombay High Court on the ground that they had moved the court after 21 years of the issue of notifications under Section 6 and 16 years from the date of making an award and taking of possession. 22. The same view was reiterated in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (supra). In that case, the writ petition was filed in 1989 after the award was passed and possession of the acquired land was taken. 23. In Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana (supra), the landowners were denied relief because they had approached the High Court after 8 years of the notification issued under Section 4(1) and about 5 years of the passing of award and taking of possession. 24.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have given our serious thought to the entire matter and carefully examined the records. Section 16 lays down that once the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he can take possession of the acquired land. Simultaneously, the section declares that upon taking possession by the Collector, the acquired land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In terms of the plain language of this section, vesting of the acquired land in the Government takes place as soon as possession is taken by the Collector after passing an award under Section 11. To put it differently, the vesting of land under Section 16 of the Act presupposes actual taking of possession and till that is done, legal presumption of vesting enshrined in Section 16 cannot be raised in favour of the acquiringthe Act does not prescribes the mode and manner of taking possession of the acquired land by the Collector, it will be useful to notice some of the judgments in which this issue has beenreading of the Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandis, copies of which have been placed on record, shows that actual and physical possession of the acquired land is still with the appellants. Jamabandis relate to the year 2005-2006. Copies of notice dated 10/11.2.2011 issued by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. relates to appellant No.1 - Prahlad Singh and this, prima facie, supports the appellants assertion that physical possession of the land is still with them. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have not placed any document before this Court to show that actual possession of the acquired land was taken on the particular date. Therefore, the High Court was not right in recording a finding that the acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the Statejudgments, which have been referred to in the impugned order really do not have any bearing on the case in hand because in all those cases, the Court had found that possession of the acquired land had been taken.