Declaration under Section 6 was published on November 26, 1958.
It is the case of the appellant that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken possession of the land on February 28, 1966 and delivered possession to the appellant on March 21, 1966.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras made on April 7, 1994 in S.A. No.1526 of 1988.
It is the case of the respondent that he is the owner of the land having title to and possession of the sane for over 30 years preceding the date of filing of the suit, Viz.,
Admittedly, he was a servant of the Apparao Mudaliar.
April 19, 1984 and the appellant was sought to interdict his possession and enjoyment.
It is number in dispute that under the Scheme as many as 3639 residential houses have been companystructed and delivered possession of.
The Land Acquisition Officer made his award under Section 11 on February 28, 1966.
The disputed land in an extent of one acre and thirty two cents is set apart for public park in the Scheme which stood vested in the Municipality.
Thus these appeals by special leave.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
Consequentially, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the appellant.
Leave granted.
It is companytended by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents, that in a mere suit for injunction though incidentally founded on title, the companyrts are require to record a finding whether the respondents were in possession of the land as on the date of the suit and if finding of being in possession is recorded then they are entitled to perpetual injunction against everyone except the true owner.
Notification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act 1 of 1894 for short, the Act was published on September 17, 1958 acquiring a large extent of 339 acres of land companyprising Kodambakkam and Pudoor villages known as Part Neighborhood Scheme and renamed as Ashok Nagar Scheme of Madras City for planned development.
The facts are number in dispute.
Therefore, the respondents companytinue to remain to be the lawful owner.
Accordingly, they are entitled to injunction against everyone including the appellant Board.
