Bhagwati, J. - (1.) We agree with the conclusion reached by our brother Untwalia, J., as also with the reasoning on which the conclusion is based. But we are writing a separate judgment as we feel that the discussion in the judgment of our learned brother Untwalia, J., in regard to delivery of 'symbolical' and 'actual' - possession under Rules 35, 36, 95 and 96 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not necessary for the disposal of the present appeals and we do not wish to subscribe to what has been said by our learned brother Untwalia, J., in that connection, nor do we wish to express our assent with the discussion of the various authorities made by him in his judgment. We think it is enough to state that when the Government proceeds to take possession of the land acquired by it under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it must take actual possession of the land since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. There can be no question of taking 'symbolical' possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. How such possession may 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. We should not, therefore, be taken as laying down an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land in every case. But here, in our opinion, since the land was lying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tehsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the land for the purpose of deter- mining what part was waste and arable and should, therefore, be taken possession of and determining its extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It appears that the appellant was not present when this was done by the Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or the occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable where possible, to give such notice before possession is taken by the authorities,as that would eliminate the possibility of any fraudulent or collusive transaction of taking of mere paper possession, without the occupant or the owner ever coming to know of it.
(2.) We are of the view, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, that the Tahsildar took actual possession of that part of the land which was waste or arable and handed it over to the Principal of the Agricultural College. It is true that the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his letter dated 13th December, 1961 to the Commissioner stated that possession of the entire land was still with the appellant and it was not actually taken possession of by the Principal, Agricultural College, But it is obvious that this statement was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer because he thought that actual possession of the land could not be regarded as having been taken, unless the appellant was excluded from the land and since the appellant immediately, without any obstruction, entered upon the land and continued in possession, "the land was not actually taken possession of by the Principal, Agricultural College". This was plainly erroneous view, for the legal position is clear that even if the appellant entered upon the land and resumed possession of it the very next moment after the land was actually taken possession of and became vested in the Government, such act on the part of the appellant did not have the effect of obliterating the consequences of vesting. There can, therefore, be no doubt that actual possession of 19 acres 16 gunthas of waste and arable land was taken by the Tahsildar on 3rd April, 1959 and it became vested in the Government. (Neither the Government nor the Commissioner could thereafter withdraw from the acquisition of any portion of this land under S. 48 (1) of the Act.
(3.) The result is that the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. There will be only one set of costs.;