Land acquisition title extinguished after possession; post-notification transfers and adverse possession claim could not defeat the State's rights.

Once a notification under Section 4(1) is published, later transfers by the owner do not defeat the acquisition or bind the State. Completion of the acquisition was established by the Section 6 declaration, notices under Sections 9 and 10, the award, and taking of possession, and under Section 16 the State acquired the property free from encumbrances with the original title extinguished. The adverse possession plea failed because there was no pleading or proof of hostile, open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession after delivery of possession to the Society.

---

---

Issues: Whether sales made after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) could defeat the acquisition, whether the acquisition stood completed upon award and taking of possession, and whether the petitioners had perfected title by adverse possession.

Analysis: Once the notification under Section 4(1) was published, subsequent transfers by the owner could not bind the State. The declaration under Section 6, service of notices under Sections 9 and 10, the award, and the taking of possession established that the acquisition had been completed. By operation of Section 16, the State acquired the property free from all encumbrances and the original owner's title stood extinguished. The plea of adverse possession also failed, as there was no pleading or proof of hostile, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession after delivery of possession to the Society.

Conclusion: The post-notification sales were void against the acquisition, the State's title was unaffected by later encumbrances, and the claim of adverse possession was rightly rejected.

---