The contribution of Rs. 10/- by the Government towards the compensation for the acquisition of the petitioners' property was a sufficient compliance with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Rule upon the respondents to show cause why Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition should not issue for direction upon the respondents to recall a Notice issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for quashing and prohibiting of certain proceedings started under the said Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are two minor co-parceners of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family. The case of the petitioners is that premises No. 151/1, Baithakkhana Road and 98, Akhil Mistry Lane belong to the said joint family of the petitioners and the petitioners are separately entitled to one eighth share each in the said premises. By two indentures of leases dated the 4th June 1910 and 7th September 1929 the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners granted leases in respect of. the said properties in favour of the then trustees of an educational institution then known as Ripon College and now known as Surendra Nath College. The leases were for a period up to 31st March, 1981. It is alleged that for the first time on or about the 5-2-1951 a Notice issued under section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon the mother and natural guardian of the petitioners requiring disclosure of the names of persons interested in the said premises, the extent and nature of such interest and certain other particulars as mentioned in the said Notice. It is further stated in the petition that although the land acquisition proceedings appear to have been started in or about February 1949 when the declaration for acquisition was made, the petitioners were not made parties to such proceedings nor were they served with any notice in respect thereof nor did they ever receive any intimation of such proceedings. It is stated that the Surendra Nath College is a profit-making organisation and the acquisition is not for a public purpose but for benefiting the private organisation and as such is illegal and void. The petitioner's fundamental rights as to equality before the law and equal protection of the law are alleged to have been violated by the acquisition proceedings.

( 3 ) IN the circumstances the petitioners have moved this Court for the reliefs stated above.

( 4 ) TWO affidavits have been filed in opposition to this application-one by the Second Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta and the other by Mr. Ranadeb Chaudhuri who is one of the present trustees of the Surendra Nath College. The trustees of the Surendra Nath College were not made parties to the present proceedings but upon their application I have given them leave to be represented in these proceedings for protection of their interest.

( 5 ) IT appears from the affidavit of the Second Land Acquisition Collector that the father of the petitioners was served with the requisite notices under the Land Acquisition Act since about 19th April 1949. The petitioners' father Kanhaiyalal Ruia represented in the acquisition proceedings that he as karta of the joint family was the sole and absolute owner of the said premises No. 151/1, Baitakhana Road and 98 Akhil Mistry Lane. He was repeatedly called upon to file the relevant documents but he deliberately neglected to produce such documents with the object of delaying the acquisition as much as possible. Prosecution had to be started against him under Section 175, Penal Code, and under pressure of such prosecution Kanhaiyalal ultimately came out with the facts that the premises in question belonged jointly to him, his step-mother and his two minor sons (the petitioners herein ). Immediately thereafter on or about the 5th February 1951 the notice complained of was served on Silawanti Ruia, the mother and natural guardian of the petitioners.

( 6 ) IT appears from the affidavit in opposition of Mr. Chowdhury that the petitioners and their mother lived together and in joint mess with Kanhaiyalal Ruia at all material times and had notice of the land acquisition procee