In Brief
A dispute arose over whether the State of Haryana had properly acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowner (respondent) challenged the acquisition before the High Court, arguing it had lapsed under the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because the State had not taken actual physical possession. The Supreme Court held that a formal panchnama (official record) documenting possession in the presence of the landowner and interested persons constitutes sufficient proof of possession. Since the respondent then trespassed and constructed upon the already-possessed land, he became an encroacher and could not claim relief. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.