Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PUTTU LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Decided
14 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 638 · 1996 INSC 247
Also cited as
  • (1996) 3 SCC 99 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

. This appeal by special foave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated July 15, 1976 made in Civil First Appeal No. 11/65. The State filed the suit for recovery of possession of property from the respondents pursuant to the orders passed under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. The civil court dismissed the suit but on appeal the High Court allowed the same.

p. 638, margin E

The admitted facts are that . the land originally belonged to Smt. Kokilla. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on April 15, 1928 and declaration under Section 6 was published on ·July 28, 1928 acquiring the land known as · Phulwari for public purpose, namely, for construction of the quarters for the constables of Police outpost Misrana. That acquisition has become final. Now, the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that compensation was paid to Smt. Kokila and, therefore, the land stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances.

pp. 638–639, margin G

The contention raised by the appellant is that the proceedings were taken under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1955 and the property was declared to be encumbered estate. As a consequence, the title of the appellant's predecessor was upheld. He being the purchaser at an auction is entitled to the possession by virtue of his title. We find no force in the contention. Having acquired the land under the provisions of the Act and the possession having been taken thereunder the right, title and interest held by Smt. Kokila stood extinguished and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the State is the absolute owner. The State being the owner, is entitled to file the suit for possession. The High Court, therefore, has rightly found that the appellants at this distance of time cannot question the correctness of the acquisition made in 1928.

p. 639, margin A

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 639, margin D