Easement of necessity survives land acquisition where access depends on the acquired land and is not separately compensable.

An easement of necessity, being an indispensable right of access to reach the dominant land, is treated differently from an ordinary easement in land acquisition proceedings. The text explains that where the land could be reached only through the acquired property and the sale deed recognised access, vesting the land in the State under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not automatically extinguish that necessary passage. The phrase "free from all encumbrances" was read as not requiring the extinction of a non-compensable right of passage of this kind. The article also notes that authority relied on by the appellant did not address easements of necessity and did not displace the larger Bench view.

---

---

Issues: Whether a right of passage claimed as an easement of necessity stood extinguished on acquisition of the servient land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The finding of fact was that the respondents' land could be reached only through the acquired land and that the sale deed itself recognised a right of access. The Court distinguished ordinary easements, for which compensation could be claimed in acquisition proceedings, from an easement of necessity arising from the inability to reach the land otherwise. It held that the expression "free from all encumbrances" in Section 16 did not require the extinguishment of a right of passage of this nature, especially where such right was not capable of valuation in compensation terms. The Court also noted that the decision relied on by the appellant did not deal with an easement of necessity and did not displace the larger Bench view that remained applicable.

Conclusion: The right of passage by necessity was not extinguished by the land acquisition, and the respondents were entitled to access through the acquired land; the challenge by the appellant failed.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition did not defeat the respondents' necessary access over the acquired land, and the appellate interference sought by the appellant was unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: An easement of necessity, being a right of access indispensable for enjoyment of the dominant land and not separately compensable in acquisition, is not necessarily extinguished by vesting of acquired land in the State under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

---