Broad reading of "or otherwise" and absolute vesting under acquisition rules brought government-acquired land within the encroachment statute.

Land acquired by the Government under Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules was treated as "public property" under Section 2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, because the phrase "or otherwise" was construed broadly and not confined to inter vivos transfers. On that basis, proceedings under the encroachment statute were maintainable. The acquisition rule was also read as effecting absolute vesting in the Government free from encumbrances, so the former owner retained no transferable title after acquisition. As a result, subsequent purchasers, including the bank and later transferees, acquired no right or title in the disputed land.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether land acquired by the Government under Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules fell within "public property" under Section 2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950, so as to attract proceedings under that Act. (ii) Whether acquisition under Rule 75A(3) vested title absolutely in the Government, leaving no transferable title in the former owner or subsequent purchasers.

Issue (i): Whether land acquired by the Government under Rule 75A(3) of the Defence of India Rules fell within "public property" under Section 2(ii)(e) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1950, so as to attract proceedings under that Act.

Analysis: The expression "or otherwise" in Section 2(ii)(e) was construed as words of extension and not limitation. The rule of ejusdem generis was held inapplicable because the statutory language was plain and the broader legislative purpose would be defeated by confining the words to transfers inter vivos alone. An acquisition under the Defence of India Rules was treated as a statutory transfer by operation of law, which came within the inclusive reach of the provision.

Conclusion: The land acquired by the Government under Rule 75A(3) was public property within Section 2(ii)(e), and the proceedings under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether acquisition under Rule 75A(3) vested title absolutely in the Government, leaving no transferable title in the former owner or subsequent purchasers.

Analysis: Rule 75A(3) provided that on service or publication of notice of acquisition the property would vest in Government free from encumbrances and the requisition period would end. This was held to signify vesting in title and possession, not a temporary vesting. The Court further held that compensation was contemplated under the Defence of India Act, and that the former owner had no subsisting title after acquisition to convey to later purchasers.

Conclusion: Title vested absolutely in the Government, and the Bank and subsequent purchasers acquired no right or title to the disputed lands.

Final Conclusion: The writ applications failed because the disputed lands were covered by the encroachment statute and the petitioners could not establish any subsisting title or jurisdictional infirmity in the eviction proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute uses general words such as "or otherwise" after specific words, the expression is to be given an enlarging meaning when the legislative object so requires; and an acquisition under a wartime requisition/acquisition rule that directs vesting in Government free from encumbrances extinguishes the owner's title and brings the land within a public-property provision framed in similarly broad terms.

---