NARAYANAN Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 24.11.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 36879 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition.

(2.) The appellant claims to be a businessman conducting a hotel business in shop room No. 376 of Parappanangadi Panchayat. The said shop room is owned by the 4th respondent and the appellant is the tenant of the building. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext. P4 notification issued under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire certain lands for the construction of a railway over bridge at Parappanangadi. It is stated that the land and the building occupied by the appellant as tenant are proposed to be acquired. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the writ petitioner being a tenant occupying the building has no right to object to the acquisition proceedings. According to the learned Single Judge, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the notification issued under S.4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.

(3.) Having heard Mr. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with learned Single Judge that the appellant being a tenant of the building proposed to be acquired has no locus standi to challenge the notification issued under S.4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (LA), Neyvely, 1995 (1) SCC 221 , and contended that a liberal interpretation should be given to the expression person interested. However, the appellant in the above mentioned case before the Supreme Court was the person for whose benefit the land was acquired and in that context the Supreme Court said that the expression person interested should be given a liberal interpretation. Even on giving a liberal interpretation for the expression person interested, a tenant of the building proposed to be acquired cannot be considered as a person interested. Hence the contention based on the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court has no merit.