( 1 ) BECAUSE common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these two appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) REGULAR Second Appeal No. 1043 of 1975 arises out of suit OS. 110/ 1973 on the file of the Munsiff, Chickmagalur. RSA. 1050 of 1975 arises out of suit OS. 143 of 1973 on the file of the said Court. An extent of 5 acres 11 guntas of land bearing Sy No. 467 of Kuruvangi village was acquired by the State Govt for the purpose of village extension of Kuruvangi village under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The said land belongs to the deity Sree Anjaneyaswamy, situated in the said village. The land Acquisition Officer passed an awaid under the provisions of the Act and at his instance the Revenue Inspector, under a mahazar drawn up by him on 25-2-1973, took possession of the land in question and handed it over to the Village Panchayat. The Village Panchayat converted the suit land into sites for the purpose of distribution amongst persons who had no houses in the village. Sometime thereafter, Seshappa the Respt in these two appeals instituted OS. 110/73 for an injunction restraining the grantees of the village sites from interfering with his possession. His case was that, he was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of the Archak of the deity sree Anjaneyaswamy on the date of the suit and that he had not been dispossessed by the process of law. The Kuruvangi Village Panchayat, which has jurisdiction over the village in question, instituted OS. 143 of 1973 for an injunction restraining Seshappa Shetty, the plaintiff in the other suit and some others from interfering with its possession of the land in question. ( 3 ) IT was contended by Seshappa Shetty and the other defendants in os. No. 143 of 1973 that the authorities functioning under the Land Acquisition act had not dispossessed the deity of the land in question and that therefore the said Seshappa Shetty was entitled to remain in possession, notwithstanding the fact that the land in question had been acquired and an award had been passed. The trial Court accepted the case of the Village panchayat and decreed the suit OS. No. 143 of 1973. Consequently, OS. No. 110 of 1973 was dismissed. The trial Court accepted the case of the Village panchayat and decreed the suit OS. No. 143 of 1973. Consequently, OS. No. 110 of 1973 was dismissed. Against the decrees passed by the trial Court, two appeals were filed before the Civil Judge in Regular Appeals Nos. 15 and 16 of 1975. The learned Civil Judge reversed the decrees passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit OS. No. 110 of 1973 and dismissed the suit oy. Mo. 143 of 1973. These two appeals are filed against the decrees passed by the lower appellate Court. ( 4 ) SRI Channegowda, learned counsel for the appellants in these two cases, contended that the ground on which the lower appellate Court had passed the decrees was unsustainable. It should be mentioned here that the records of the case show that on 25-2-1973 the Revenue Inspector, who had been entrusted with the duty of taking possession of the land in question pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings, went to the village in question and drew up the mahazar stating that the land had been taken possession of and had ben handed over to the Village Panchayat. What was however, argued on behalf of Seshappa Shetty before the lower appellate court was that in the absence of publication of the fact of taking possession, in the Karnataka Gazette, as provided under sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the land Acquisition Act, it would not be open to the appellants in these appeals to contend that Sheshappa Shetty had been dispossessed on 25-2-'73. Sub-sec (1) of S. 16 of the Act provides that on taking of the possession of the land in question by the authorities pursuant to a land acquisition proceeding, the title to the land acquired would vest absolutely in the Govt free from all encumbrances. Sub-sec (2) was added by Karnataka Act 17 of 1961. It provides that the fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commr in the Official Gazette and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. It is argued that the only mode of proving the taking of possession of the land under the L. A. Act, is by the production of the Notfn published by the Deputy Commr under sub-sec (2) of Sec. 16 of the Act. I do not think that there is any substance in the above contention. It is argued that the only mode of proving the taking of possession of the land under the L. A. Act, is by the production of the Notfn published by the Deputy Commr under sub-sec (2) of Sec. 16 of the Act. I do not think that there is any substance in the above contention. Sub-Sec. (2) merely authorises the Deputy Commissioner to publish the fact of taking of possession in the gazette and if there is such a notification, it shall be evidence of such fact. It does not say that the fact of taking of possession cannot be proved in any other way. The evidence in the case clearly supports the case of the appellants in these two appeals that on 25-2-73 the Revenue Inspector took possession of the land of the deity by drawing up a mahazar. The deity has not questioned the validity of the delivery proceedings. Therefore, Seshappa Shetty, who claims under the deity cannot contend that the delivery proceedings in the instant case were void and ineffective. The lower appellate Court was in error in thinking that in the absence of a publication of the notification in the official gazette under sub-sec (2) of S. 16, it had to be assumed that the deity or Seshappa, shetty continued to be in possession of the property. I am of the view that the evidence in the case substantially establishes that on 25-2-1973 the land was taken possession of by the Revenue Inspector for and on behalf of the deputy Commissioner and that the land vested in the Govt. free from all encumbrances. In the circumstances, it has to be held that Seshappa Shetty was not entitled to be in possession of the land in question on the date he instituted OS. No. 110 of 1973. In the result, the decrees passed by the lower appellate Courts are set aside and the decrees passed by the trial Court are restored. No costs. --- *** --- .