JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—Petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, i860 (Act No. 21 of 1860). Petitioner No. 2 is its President and petitioner No 3 a Member of its governing body. They have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 111 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against the respondents for restoring property of petitioner No 1 to it and to pay damages/use and occupation charges w. e. f. 29th April, 1978 onwards. 2. Petitioner No. 1-Society was registered on 25th May, 1971. Annexure P-1 is the certificate of registration. The aims and objects of the Society as contained in its bye-laws Annexure P-5 are as follows :—- (i) To make the youths self sufficient by propagating amongst them the philosophy of Kararn Yoga of Shree Gecta. (ii) To take the people of the country/State on the path of progress by propagating amongst them to spirit of performing their duties selflessly as propounded in Shree Geeta. (iii) The cause of prevailing unemployment in the country and the State is to forget the overlook the philosophy of Shree Geeta. Therefore, it is necessary to awaken the people and to show them the path of Karatn Yoga* to remove unemployment. 3. The Society through a deed of sale Annexure P-3 dated 23rd November, 1973 purchased property situate within the revenue estate Chimbaldwar (Rani Sidhpur), Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra to the extent of 0-33-8! Hectares for a consideration of Rs 8,000. Till the month of July/August, 1979, it had with its own funds raised a huge construction thereupon consisting of 22 rooms inclusive of 4 big halls. A School with two wings by the name of Bhartendu Mahavidayalaya was being run in a part of the said building for imparting higher education in Hindi and Sanskrit. Later on, third wing was also added to it for imparting education in Ayurvedic system of medicines and to prepare students for Ayurvedacharya. The School was affiliated to Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad for the purpose of awarding degrees/certificates. Later on, third wing was also added to it for imparting education in Ayurvedic system of medicines and to prepare students for Ayurvedacharya. The School was affiliated to Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad for the purpose of awarding degrees/certificates. Petitioner No. 3 being founder of the Society and qualified in Ayurveda was appointed as Principal and Head of Ayurveda Wing It is further the case of the petitioners that when during emergency in the year 1976-77, the management of Ayurveda Wing as well as that of the Society became disorganised due to the arrest of petitioners No. 2 and 3, the Police took over the records of Ayurveda Wing as well as of the Society and certain persons tried to encroach upon its property. The possession of the property is also stated to have been taken by the respondents on 10th October, 1976 on the basis of a resolution of the same day (Annexure R-l), alleged to have been passed by Shri Parkash Chand Kudesha and Gurmukh Singh Bedi, for which they had no authority on behalf of petitioner No.1. 4. After the respondents took over possession of the property, Annexure P-6 Notification was issued on 7/8th September, 1977 by respondent No. 1 ordering the superseding of the Managing Committee and appointing Deputy Commissioner, Kangra as its Administrator to run the Institution under its direction of which information was given to the Secretary of petitioner No. 1 Ayurvedic College on 9th September, 1V77 vide letter Annexure P-7. On the same day, Managing Committee of petitioner No. 1 met and passed Resolution Annexure P~8 objecting to the decision of respondent No. 1, inter alia, in the following words : ~~ "It is revealed from the letter received by the Secretary that the Govt. has appointed D. C. as Administrator after dissolving the management Committee of the Ayurvedic College. It is a hard blow to the developing Sanstha if this action is meant only for taking possession and not for adopting the College by the Govt. This step of the Govt is undemocratic and in violation of the registered constitution of the Sanstha, which vehemeotiy condemned unanimously. Therefore, the Govt. should immediately hand over the possession of the College to the authorised members of the Committee or else take over the College formally according to the policy framed in resolution No. I " (emphasis supplied). This step of the Govt is undemocratic and in violation of the registered constitution of the Sanstha, which vehemeotiy condemned unanimously. Therefore, the Govt. should immediately hand over the possession of the College to the authorised members of the Committee or else take over the College formally according to the policy framed in resolution No. I " (emphasis supplied). On the basis of the aforementioned Resolution, respondent No. I was asked to deliver back the possession of the property to the Managing Committee or in the alternative to take it over after negotiation of terms and conditions* It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. I on receipt of this communication took a decision to take over the Ayurvedic Wing of the petitioner-Society as it had also decided to take over the management of another Ayurvedic College functioning at Paprola, Respondent No. 1 asked the Director of Ayurveda through letter Annexure P-9 dated 19th November, 1977 to send a proposal in this behalf. Subsequently on 29th April, I9789 Annexure P-l0 Notification was issued notifying the supersession of Annexure Pr6 Notification and taking over the Ayurvedic Wing of the petitioner-Society with immediate effect and directing its amalgamation with Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola. Principal of the Ayurvedic College was asked to hand over the charge of tlft College through Annexure P-l I letter dated 21st June, 1978. In order to settle the terms and conditions of taking over the possession and management of Gita Vidya Peeth Ayurveda Mahavidalaya, Palampur, Notification Annexure P-l 2 dated 9th June, 1989 was issued constituting a Committee comprising of Shri Guler Chand, Member of Legislative Assembly as President, Shri R. M. Bali, Deputy Director Health Services as Member and Director of Ayurveda as Member-Secretary. The Committee was directed to submit its report within a period of six months. The Committee was directed to submit its report within a period of six months. Terms of reference on which report was sought were spelled out in another Notification Annexure P-i 3 dated 30th January, 1981 which may be quoted hereunder :— "Terms of reference : (i) To examine whether the Resolution passed by the Managing Committee of Shri Geeta Vidya Peeth Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya, Palampur, in pursuance with the Government vide their Notification No. HFW-F (4) 3/77, dated 7/8th September, 1977 decided to take over the said institution, was the surpassed by the actual Managing Committee of the Shri Geeta Vidya Peeth Ayurveda Mahavidayalaya If not, resulting irregularities/ shortcomings, if any, committed in taking over the institution and its assets due to presentation of wrong resolution before the Government. (ii) To augment ways to rectify/make up the irregularities/shortcomings, if any, as stated in Para-1 above in accordance with the resolution passed by the actual Managing Committee, if any." 5. Report Annexure P-14 was submitted by the Committee to the State Government which made the following recommendations i— "1. That an agreement be entered into with Shiromani Sabha Geeta Vidya Peeth, Palampur on the same terms on which it is made with Paprola Ayurvedic College which was run by Vaid Hakim Paris had. 2. The whole of the staff of the Palampur College may be taken over by the Government from the day on which the College was taken over by the Government on the same pattern as has been adopted regarding Paprola College. 3. The enquiry committee feels that Shri Geeta Vidya Peeth Palampur has sustained huge loss on account of the fact that no agreement has been made by Government with it till date. 4. Shiromani Sabha Shri Geeta Vidya Peeth Palampur is body registered with the office of Registrar Shimla. This is certified copy is attached. The enquiry Committee recommends to the Government that an agreement to affected with this Sanstha." 6. It is the case of the petitioners that despite recommendations of the Committee, no agreement was arrived at laying down the terms and conditions of taking over the Ayurvedic College of the Society. Even dispute was raised about not taking over the services of some of the employees. It is the case of the petitioners that despite recommendations of the Committee, no agreement was arrived at laying down the terms and conditions of taking over the Ayurvedic College of the Society. Even dispute was raised about not taking over the services of some of the employees. Civil Writ Petition No, 339 of 1982 titled as Gulshan Kumar Sharma and others v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another; was instituted in this Court, inter alia, praying therein for taking over the services of petitioner No. 3 and others and to restore back the possession of the property to the petitioners. On coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act and establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, part of the relief was not pressed with permission to file appropriate proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal. The Writ Petition for the remaining relief which was pending on the institution of the instant Writ Petition was later on permitted to be withdrawn in view of the petitioners having filed the instant petition. 7. The petitioners have made grievance that at the time of taking over of the Ayurvedic Wing of the College, the same was being run in about half a portion of the property and the remaining part of the building housed Sanskrit Wing. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the petitioner-Society had resolved for taking over of the part of property where Ayurvedic Wing was being run on a specific condition that if the Government fails to run Ayurvedic College in that part of the building, the same will have to be returned to the Society. Though the College was taken over by respondent No.1 yet now the building is not being used for the purpose of running Ayurvedic College. Instead, the same has been allowed to be used by respondent No. 1 for various other purposes and presently a Patwar School is being run therein. Though the College was taken over by respondent No.1 yet now the building is not being used for the purpose of running Ayurvedic College. Instead, the same has been allowed to be used by respondent No. 1 for various other purposes and presently a Patwar School is being run therein. It is contended that the use to which property bas been put by respondent No I is illegal and unauthorised In nut-shell the grievance which the petitioner bad made in the instant Writ Petition is that petitioner No. 1 bas been deprived of its property in an arbitrary manner and when petitioner No. 1 wanted to settle terms and conditions, a Committee was appointed Even the recommendations of the Committee containing its report were not accepted by respondent No I. Terms and conditions were not settled and now the property is being used for a purpose other than that for which its possession was taken over. Since the petitioner claims that it has been deprived of its property by respondent No 1 otherwise than in due course of law and in an arbitrary and illegal manner, a direction be issued to respondents for restoring the same and for paying use and occupation charges by way of damages, 8. Respondents have contested the Writ Petition by filing its return on the affidavit of the Director of Ayurved, Himachal Pradesh. According to the stand taken by respondents, the Managing Committee of petitioner No. 1 was superseded by Notification Annexure P-6 and the Deputy Commissioner was appointed as an Administrator. The Ayurvedic Wing was also taken over by Notification Annexure P-IO dated 29th April, 1978 along-with all its movable and immovable property as well as the liabilities and since it was on the basis of Notification Annexure P-10 that the institution was taken over alongwith its movable and immovable property as well as its liabilities, therefore, the petitioners are estopped from claiming back its possession from respondent No. 1. It is not disputed that a Committee was set up after Notification Annexure P-10 had been issued with a view to settle the terms and conditions of taking over after negotiation and the Committee had also submitted its report- The defence set up by respondent No. I for not accepting the recommendations of the Committee is that the Committee never pointed out that the Resolution passed on 10th October, 1976 to hand over the College to Government alongwirh its movable and immovable property was passed by an unauthorised Managing Committee. It is the case of respondents that since the Government had taken over the College alongwith its assets and liabilities, the property has absolutely vested in it and the same can be utilised for any purpose whatsoever. After the Ayurvedic Wing was amalgamated with Ayurvedic College, Paprola, the property fell vacant and the same was transferred to the Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Himachal Pradesh for putting up a chilling plant and the Deputy Commissioner handed over the land as well as the building to the Dairy Manager, Animal Husbandry Department through his letter dated 30th November, 1978 and since the Director of Animal Husbandry objected to the transfer of the building, the same was utilised by the District Collector, Kangra by setting up of a Patwar Training Institute. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that since the College was taken over in view of the request of the Management of the College and after taking over of possession of the building, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra has spent a huge amount to maintain the same, the possession of the same with the Government is legal since it has become the property of the Government and in view of this, no directions, as prayed can be issued. 9- After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on going through the records, we find that stand taken by the respondents that the property has since vested absolutely in the Government and it is not bound to deliver its possession to the petitioners and also not bound to pay any amount for its use and occupation is not sustainable in law. Taking over of the Management of the College and taking over of possession of the property are two entirely different matters. Taking over of the Management of the College and taking over of possession of the property are two entirely different matters. Since the Ayurvedic College run by petitioner No. 1 was taken over and whatever staff thereof could be adjusted was adjusted by respondent No. I in Ayurvedic College, Paprola, no grievance in that behalf has been made and rightly so by the petitioners in this Writ Petition. The grievance which has been made is as regard to its property. The sole grievance made during arguments is that petitioner No 1 has been deprived of its immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. It is the case of the respondents also that after it had entered into possession of the property of petitioner No. 1, no amount of compensation was assessed, determined or paid and the said property has also neither been requisitioned under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, nor the same has been acquired tinder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Constitution of India, primarily there were two modes of depriving a person of his immovables property in exercise of the right of eminent domain of the State, namely, requisition of the property or acquisition thereof. After the Constitution came into force, the same pattern of laws is continued to be maintained. It is not the case of respondents that property has been transferred in its favour by petitioner No. 1 by regularly executing a deed of transfer under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act As observed earlier, after the respondents had come in possession of the property on the basis of Resolution dated 10th October, 1976, legality and validity of which was challenged by the petitioners, Annexures P-12 and P-l 3 Notifications were issued by respondent No. 1 constituting a Committee to examine the matter as to whether any irregularities or shortcomings were committed in taking over the institution alongwith its assets and if so what measures could be taken to rectify the same. The report submitted by the Committee appointed by respondent No. 1 has not been challenged by the respondents. The report submitted by the Committee appointed by respondent No. 1 has not been challenged by the respondents. The Committee in para 6 of its report was clearly of the view that Resolution dated 10th October, 1976 written by Shri Parkash Chand Kudesha and attested by Shri Gurmukh Singh Bedi had been written by them in a hurry and none of them was the member of the Managing Committee and they had nothing to do with petitioner No. 1-Society. Neither they were employees of the College, nor they had any interest in the affairs of respondent No. 1. It was further observed by the Committee that Government took over the College without applying its mind and ultimately on the basis of such findings, it recommended to the State Government for entering into negotiations with the petitioners as regards compensation etc. for its property. Respondent No. 1 came in possession of the property in pursuance to a Resolution which the Committee found to have been passed by persons not competent to do so. Such entry in possession was without any authority of law However, the petitioners acquiesced in such unauthorised possession of respondent No 1 by subsequently passing a Resolution with certain reservations. It allowed use of its property for Ayurvedic College only and that also on settlement of terms. Such terms till date despite the recommendations of the Committee have not been settled. Instead of using the property for Ayurvedic College or running Ayurvedic College therein, it has put the same to a different use. Respondent No. I has also maintained the property. But mere continuing in possession and maintaining the property does not amount to the property vesting in it under any law. Even in cases where property is requisitioned by the State under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, title does not vest In the State till the same is acquired under the relevant provisions of law Continuing in possession amounts to respondent No i merely having a domain or control over the property without right of ownership. Right of ownership or title cannot be said to have been acquired or vested in the State since neither the property has been transferred to it under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, nor the same has been acquired by it. Right of ownership or title cannot be said to have been acquired or vested in the State since neither the property has been transferred to it under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, nor the same has been acquired by it. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that a citizen cannot be deprived of its property save by an authority of law, In the case of dis-possession except by an authority of law, the owner will be entitled to restoration of possession. 10. Having found in the instant case that the property has not vested in the State and the same is being used and utilised by it and petitioner No- I has not been paid any compensation for deprivation of the possession, the question which remains to be decided is the relief which can be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether the petitioners can be allowed the relief of restoration of possession in these proceedings or not. The respondents have contended that the petitioners have atleast acquiesced in their possession and as such are not entitled to the relief. We find that the conduct of the petitioners in having passed Resolution Annexure P-8 amounts to acquiescence in the respondents continuing in occupation, but of course subject to settlement of terms They further allowed a Committee to be set up to go into the entire aspect and make its recommendations. They further allowed the respondents to continue developing the property. In view of this we have no doubts in our mind that such a conduct disentitles the petitioners from claiming back possession. It also cannot be agitated by the petitioners that respondents ought not to have utilised the property for any other purpose, other than that for which they acquiesced in the respondents making use of it. No fetters can be placed as to the manner of use of the property. In the facts and circumstances, petitioners can only claim to be compensated suitably. Since the material facts in the instant use have not been disputed, petitioners can be allowed appropriate relief in these proceedings for issuance of a Writ of mandamus against respondents 1 to 3. No fetters can be placed as to the manner of use of the property. In the facts and circumstances, petitioners can only claim to be compensated suitably. Since the material facts in the instant use have not been disputed, petitioners can be allowed appropriate relief in these proceedings for issuance of a Writ of mandamus against respondents 1 to 3. Since we have held petitioners entitled to the amount of compensation and since the petitioners having approached this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is but proper to consider as to for what equitable compensation the petitioners are entitled for use and occupation of property till payment of compensation The petitioners have claimed use and occupation charges of the property from 29th April, 1978 onwards alongwith interest thereupon. As the petitioners will be entitled to the amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act alongwith compulsory acquisition charges and interest in accordance with law from the 29th April, 1978, therefore, we do not feel that an order deserves to be passed for payment of use and occupation charges to the petitioners separately from 29th April, 1978 onwards. The reason which has prevailed with ~us in holding this view is that while taking over the management of the College, respondent No. I also took over its liabilities including absorbing the staff of the College. Otherwise to adjust equities by allowing use and occupation charges to petitioners, respondents would have been relieved of obligation in taking over liabilities and absorbing staff. 11. In the result, we partly allow the Writ Petition and direct respondent No. I to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. In the result, we partly allow the Writ Petition and direct respondent No. I to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since possession of the property is already with the respondents, which cannot be claimed back, the requirements of issuance of formal Notification under section 4 of the Act and making of declaration under sections 6 and 7 of the Act need not be gone into, except for taking the date of decision of the instant Civil Writ Petition, namely C. W. P. No. 547 of 1988, as the date of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and same also as date of making declaration under section 6 of the Act and to conclude the proceedings for determination of the amount of compensation by an award within a period of one year and to pay to petitioner No. 1 within one month thereafter the amount of compensation due and payable alongwith solatium and interest in accordance with the provisions of the said Act- We may further observe that petitioner No. 1 will be entitled to the interest from the actual date of dis-possession, namely, 29th April, 1978. In case the petitioners shall feel aggrieved by the award determining the amount of compensation under the provisions of the Act. we need hardly add that they shall be at liberty to have the amount of compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by seeking reference under section 18 of the Act 12. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition partly allowed.