Acquisition of land-When Complete-Acquisition is complete when the entire possession is taken

and the title passes to the government. (1980 All India Land Laws Reporter 188)

-Building taken on lease by government-Later notification under sections 4 and 6 invoking

provisions of Section 17- Government should not have resorted to urgency provisions as it was
already in possession. 1984 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 347

-Acquisition of land for expansion of rail facilities-14 years after the acquisition of land the
railway authorities transferred a part of land to the Notified Area Committee. Such transfer
would not affect the validity of acquisition. AIR 1977 SC 1456 : 1977 UJ (SC) SCC 46

The Municipal Corporation Of The ... vs The Great Indian Peninsula ... on 26
October, 1916
Equivalent citations: (1917) 19 BOMLR 48

When the Collector, who is the official designated to do so, has ascertained the compensation
to be allowed and the-proper apportionment among the persons interested, he may take
possession and then, under Section 16, the land is to vest absolutely in the Government free
from all encumbrances. It is conceded that "encumbrance" includes a right of passage.

The point to be decided on this appeal is whether the respondents in constructing certain
lines of railway on the level across the Hewri-Koliwada Road in Bombay, being a public
street there under the control of the Municipal Commissioner for the City, have the right to
do so without either obtaining permission from the appellant corporation or acquiring under
" The Land Acquisition Act, 3894," so much of the street as is occupied by the level
crossing. Boaman J., who tried the action in which the question arose, gave judgment for the
appellants and ordered the restoration of the land with damages. The High Court at Bombay
reversed this judgment Co and dismissed the action.

Pawan Singh And Ors., Shanta ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: 112 (2004) DLT 420, 2004 (75) DRJ 739
As per the scheme provided under the LA Act, the proceedings for acquisition start with a
preliminary notification under Section 4. By that notification the Government notifies that land
in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. On that notification
certain consequences follow and authority is conferred on an officer either generally or specially
by Government and on his servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels of any
land in such locality, to dig or bore into the sub-soil, to do all other acts necessary to ascertain
whether the land is adapted for such purpose, to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be
taken, and so on. Then Section 5-A provides that any person interested in any land which has
been notified in Section 4, may within thirty days of the issue of the notification object to the
acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality as the case may be. Every such objection
shall be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector has to give the objector an opportunity
of being heard. After hearing all objections and after making such further inquiry if any as he
thinks fit, the Collector has to submit the case for the decision of the Government together with
the record of the proceedings held by him and the report containing his recommendations on the
objections. The decision of the Government on the objection is final. Then comes the notification
under Section 6, which provides that when the appropriate government is satisfied after
considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A that any particular land is needed for a
public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect and published in the official gazette.
After such a declaration has been made under Section 6, the Collector has to take order for
acquisition of land. It is marked out, measured and planned under Section 8 if necessary and
notice is given under Section 9 to persons interested. The Collector then holds inquiry under
Section 11 and makes an award. After the award is made, the Collector has got the power to take
possession of the land under Section 16 and the land then vests absolutely in the Government
free from all encumbrances.

 In New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (1996) 1 SCC 731 [LNIND 1995 SC
1236] at para 3, this Court held:
...Once the award has been made and compensation has been deposited or paid under Section 31 of the Act, the Land Acquisition
Officer is entitled to take possession and the possession thereby taken stands vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free
from all encumbrances.

(2011) 5 SCC 386 (Prahlad Singh and others vs. Union of India and others. Paragraph 13 of
the judgment reads as under:
'13. We have given our serious thought to the entire matter and carefully examine 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 acquiring authority.'

The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144 (BDA vs.
State of Karnataka and others) at paragraphs 5 and 8 reads as under:

"5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably
and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period.
An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and
paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This
has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of
award and completing the acquisition proceedings.
The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under
the Act of 1894 and the expression "physical possession" used in Section 24(2). As a matter
of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant only
physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always
amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government
acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the
physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is
acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in
possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for
which it has been acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically
occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining
possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re-entry is made on the
land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is
deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The possession of
trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the
case.
247. The concept of possession is complex one. It comprises the right to possess and to
exclude others, essential is animus possidendi. Possession depends upon the character of the
thing which is possessed. If the land is not capable of any use, mere non-user of it does not
lead to the inference that the owner is not in possession. The established principle is that the
possession follows title. Possession comprises of the control over the property. The element
of possession is the physical control or the power over the object and intention or will to
exercise the power. Corpus and animus are both necessary and have to co-exist. Possession
of the acquired land is taken under the Act of 1894 under Section 16 or 17 as the case may
be. The government has a right to acquire the property for public purpose. The stage
under Section 16 comes for taking possession after issuance of notification under Section
4(1) and stage of Section 9(1). Under section 16, vesting is after passing of the award on
taking possession and under section 17 before passing of the award.

253. Under section 16 of the Act of 1894, vesting of title in the Government, in the land took
place immediately upon taking possession. Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894, the
acquired land became the property of the State without any condition or limitation either as
to title or possession. Absolute title thus vested in the State

256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute has provided
under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting
occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting
specified under section 16, takes place after various steps, such as, notification under section
4, declaration under section 6, notice under section 9, award under section 11 and then
possession. The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all
encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests in the State but all
other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the
state becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no
control of the land-owner over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property
and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise tresspassed upon it after
possession has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of trespasser
enures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner.

In Banda Development Authority

(supra) this Court held that preparing a

Panchnama is sufficient to take possession. This Court has laid down thus:

"37. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:

(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 State authority concerned 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 land or building/structure exists, mere going on the
spot by the authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession.
Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned 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(3-A) 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."

 the majority decision of this Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, wherein
this Court observed that how such possession would be taken would depend on the nature of
the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There
can be no hard-and-fast rule laying down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of
possession of land. In the instant case the lands of which possession was sought to be taken
were unoccupied, in the sense that there was no crop or structure standing thereon. In such a
case only symbolic possession could be taken, and as was pointed out by this Court in the
aforesaid decision, such possession would amount to vesting the land in the Government.
Moreover, four acres and odd belonging to the appellant was a part of the larger area of 118
acres notified for acquisition. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court has not
committed any error in holding that possession of the land was taken on 6-11-1985. Even the
order of the Minister on which considerable reliance has been placed by the appellant
indicates that possession of the lands was taken, though symbolic.”
“85. As pointed out earlier, the expression “civil appeals are allowed” carry only one
meaning i.e. the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed.
Moreover, the determination of surplus land based on the declaration of owners has become
final long back. The notifications issued under Section 10 of the Act and the panchnama
taking possession are also final. On behalf of the State, it was asserted that the possession of
surplus land was taken on 20-7-1993 and the panchnama was executed showing that the
possession has been taken. It is signed by the witnesses. We have perused the details which
are available in the paper book. It is settled law that where possession is to be taken of a
large tract of land (2005) 12 SCC 489 then it is permissible to take possession by a properly
executed panchnama. [Vide Sita Ram Bhandar Society v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 10
SCC 501.]

Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi (supra)95 the Court observed that:

“28. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments would reveal that while taking
possession, symbolic and notional possession is perhaps not envisaged under the Act but the
manner in which possession is taken must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case. 
In P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka (2005) 12 SCC 489, the Court referred to the
observations made by Bhagwati, J. in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat (supra)
that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would be sufficient to constitute
taking of possession of the
acquired land and observed that when there is no crop or structure on the land only symbolic
possession could be taken.

It was further submitted that there is no provision in the Act requiring the giving of any
notice to the possessor of the land of the exact date and time of taking possession on the spot
and notice published under section 9(1) is sufficient. BAlwant

 in Juggobundhu Mukherjee's case (I.L.R. 5, Calsutta,584)in the following words :

"The Full Bench held that symbolic.* possession obtained by the plaintiff's vendor was
effective as against the judgment debtor, defendant, and that the suit brought against him
within 12 years of that event was not barred by limitation."

A.T.R. 1954 Madras 760.

It would thus be seen that a symbolical or formal delivery' of possession as understood in law
has the effect of dispossessing the judgment-debtor from his right title or interest in the
property. It does not dispossess the person in' actual possession in his own right not liable to
be evicted under the decree or in pursuance of the auction sale. A symbolical or formal
delivery of possession against the judgment-debtor is giving of actual possession of the
property in the eye of law and has the effect of dispossessing him although as a matter of fact
he may have succeeded in resuming back, possession as before shortly after dispossession.

Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs M. D. Bhagwat & Ors on 23 April, 1975

Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1767, 1975 SCR 250

When a public notice is published at a convenient place or near the land to be taken stating
that the Government intends to take possession of the land, then ordinarily and generally
there would be no question of resisting or impeding the taking of possession. Delivery or
giving of possession by the owner or the occupant of the land is not required. The Collector
can enforce the surrender of the land to himself under section 47 of the Act if impeded in.
taking possession. On publication of the notice under section (1) claims to compensation for
all interests in the land has to be made ; be it the interest of the owner or of a person entitled
to the occupation of the land. On the taking of possession of the land under section 16 or 17
(1) it vests absolutely in the Government free from all incumbrances. It is, therefore, clear
that taking of possession within the meaningof section 16 or 17(1) means taking of
possession on the spot. It isneither a possession on paper nor a "symbolical" possession as
generally understood in Civil Law. But the question is what is the mode of taking
possession ? The Act is silent on the point. Unless possession is taken by the written
agreement of the party concerned the mode of taking possession obviously would be for the
authority to go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate that the authority has
taken possession of the land. It may be in the form of a declaration by beat of drum or
otherwise or by hanging a written declaration on the spot that the authority 10 SC 75-18 has
taken possession of the land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the land to
effectuate the taking, of possession is not necessary.No further notice beyond that
under section 9(1) of the act: is required. When possession has been taken, the owner or the
occupant of the land is dispossessed. Once possession has been taken the land vests in the
Government.