JUDGMENT : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. We are concerned in this appeal with 2 acres 37 guntas of land in Sy.No. 17/4 and certain constructions thereon at Yellukunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. 2. A notification was published under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on January 28, 1985, proposing to acquire the land in question. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on February 1, 1985. The property was sought to be acquired for formation of a residential layout for the benefit of I.T.I. Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited. The preliminary notification was followed by the final declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on January 24, 1986. 3. The writ Petitioner's moved his writ application before the Hon'ble single Judge challenging the acquisition on the ground that, although final declaration was published as far back as on January 24, 1986, possession of the land has been retained by him and, therefore, same did not vest in the State. The Petitioner's relied upon several documents, including an endorsement dated November 22, 2007 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Revenue Department where it was stated that the land in question continued to be in possession of the land owner. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that the acquisition proceeding was lawful and on October 16, 1996, in compliance of the requirement of Section 16 of the said Act, the possession of the land was taken. Our attention is drawn to the said notification dated October 16, 1996, reflecting that the possession of the land has been taken. 5. The society, that is, the requiring body, filed a suit in the civil court against the writ Petitioner's, being Original Suit No. 1741 of 1998, and obtained an order of temporary injunction, inter alia, restraining the writ Petitioner's from interfering with the physical possession of the land in question. The injunction continued during the pendency of the suit and on March 4, 2009, the suit was decreed in favour of the society. 6. Mr. S.N. Aswathnarayan, learned advocate for the appellants submits that, as the possession has not been taken as yet, and as the Petitioner's is still in possession of the property in question, the acquisition is not complete. 6. Mr. S.N. Aswathnarayan, learned advocate for the appellants submits that, as the possession has not been taken as yet, and as the Petitioner's is still in possession of the property in question, the acquisition is not complete. He submits that, although there is a notice under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but actual possession was not taken inasmuch as there is no panchanama or mahazar showing taking over of possession. 7. Section 16 of the said Act clearly lays down that after making an award, the authorities may take possession of the land, which shall, thereupon, vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. However, Section 16 does not say that actual possession is necessary for the government to become owner of the acquired land. Symbolic possession is not ruled out by the provision of statute. Moreover, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2011)5 SCC 386 , observed that no hard-and-fast rule could be laid down as to what would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. 8. The Hon'ble single Judge was right in holding that, in such situation, it is impossible to hold in favour of the Petitioner's that the Petitioner's has been in possession of the land in question. 9. The preliminary notification is of the year 1985 and the final declaration is of the year 1986. The notification under Section 16 in relation to the land in question was published on October 16, 1996. The civil court, upon a contested hearing, held that the physical possession is with the society. 10. Mere communication by the government official to the government that possession has not been taken is not binding on the government, when records speak otherwise. 11. The learned single Judge was right in holding that the Petitioner's has not been in possession of the land in question. 12. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.