MOOSA HAJI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises for determination in these writ applications: whether the declaration, evidenced by Ext. P. 3 in each of these applications, made under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), is liable to be quashed in view of the fact that S.5 of the Act has been dispensed with. It is clear from Exts. P. 2 and P. 3 in each of these cases, Ext. P. 2 being notifications issued under S.4(1) that the land sought to be acquired and taken possession of was meant for the purpose of building an additional Ward attached to the hospital in Calicut Municipal Town. Ext. P. 2 notifications have dispensed with the provisions of S.5. This action was apparently taken under S.17(4) of the Act. That section is in these terms:

(2.) It is conceded on behalf of the State that the acquisition did not relate to arable land or any waste land and so S.17(1) cannot apply. As far as S.17(2) is concerned, various purposes have been mentioned ; but the only relevant one for the purpose of this case is that contained in S.17(2)(b)(ii)(A) which enacts,

(3.) This leads to the further question whether the acquisition was for constructing any building or other structure in any village for the common use of the inhabitants of such village. The land in question is situate within the Municipal limits of the Calicut Municipality. This can hardly be said to be a place which can be called a village. It may be useful to refer to two decisions. These decisions are reported in Diwan Chand v. Nizam Din (AIR 1924 Lahore 662 (1)) and in State v. Nand Lal (AIR 1953 Pepsu 103). In Diwan Chand v. Nizam Din (AIR 1924 Lahore 662 (1)), Their Lordships said :