(1.) SHORN of unnecessary factual details which this Court cannot obviously consider in the proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner. A tenant is entitled to raise any objection with regard to the option exercised by She landlord under S. 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition act. In the alternative can it he contended that the tenant who is in actual possession of the building alone is entitled to have the final word about it. Next question is whether in a case where S. 49 (1) of the Act is invoked is it necessary to have fresh notification and consequential proceedings under the act?
(2.) S. 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the act') states that the provisions of the Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring a part only of any house. manufactory or other building. if the owner desires that the whole of such house. manufactory or building shall be so acquired. The first proviso enables the owner to withdraw or modify his expressed desire at any time before the Collector has made his award under s. 1. Of course. that should be done by a notice in writing. S. 49 (1)specifically shows that it is only the owner of the building who alone is given the option to have the whole building being acquired if the acquisition proceedings take in only a portion of it.
(3.) A perusal of Ext. B-2 rent deed shows that the petitioner is only a tenant of the building and that he has no right in the land appurtenant to it. It further shows that he is not allowed to construct any structure in the properly or do anything against the interests of the landlord. Contention of the petitioner that it is not necessary to acquire the entire building and that it would be possible for him to carry on his activities in the unacquired portion of the building and so the landlord is not justified in giving an option under S. 49 (1) is devoid of any merit as legally he cannot raise such a contention.