A tenant has the locus standi to challenge an acquisition proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, as a tenant is a "person interested" within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and/or order passed by a learned Judge of this court on 14th December, 1998 in Matter No. 352 of 1982. By the said order, the writ application was rejected in which the writ petitioner had challenged the acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case No. 1-D of 1981/82 including the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the notice under section 9 of the Act and the two other notices dated 8th April, 1992 on the ground that the acquisition proceeding was malafide and made in colourable exercise of power conferred upon the Land Acquisition Collector and that there was no public purpose for which the premises No. 8/2, Gariahat Road including the land was sought to be acquired and also on the ground of delay in disposal of such proceeding. Before we take up the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we may state briefly the facts leading to the filing of this appeal which are as follows :

The writ petitioner/appellant was a tenant in respect of a flat in Premises No. 8/2, Gariahat Road, Calcutta (in short the "acquired property"). By a notification dated 8th May, 1975, the Land Acquisition Collector notified that the acquired property with its vacant land and Premises No. 11/1, Rustomji Street with its vacant land were likely to be needed for a public purpose that is for the construction of building for primary, secondary and intermediate sections and for providing space for recreation, physical training and work education for the students of Path Bhavan which is a well known school in South Calcutta for Boys and Girls. The writ petitioner/appellant and the owner of 1A, Rustomji Street, Calcutta, filed their objections against the aforesaid notification under section 4 of the Act in accordance with section 5A of the Act. Objections were heard. The objection of the appellant was overruled but the objection of the owner of Premises No. 1A, Rustomji Street, Calcutta was accepted. By a notification dated 24th September, 1975, the State Government declared under section 6 of the Act that the acquired property was needed for a public purpose. On the same date, the Land Acquisition Collector, issued another notification cancelling the notification made earlier under section 4 of the Act in respect of Premises No. 1A, Rustomji Street, Calcutta. The acquisition proceeding in respect of Premises no. 1A, Rustomji Street, Calcutta was accordingly dropped by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of a report submitted before him inter alia on the ground that the objector who was a widow had no alternative residential accommodation and the income derived from 1A, Rustomji Street, Calcutta was the only source of her income. On or about 4th of January, 1977, the authorities of Path Bhavan School for whom the acquired property was sought to be acquired had written to the concerned authorities whether the acquired property could be acquired under the Act or under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On 17th August, 1976, a letter was issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing advising that Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was not a bar to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. On 14th of February, 1978, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an order awaiting decision of the Government as to whether the Government may consider granting exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for the excess vacant land of 100.43 sq. mts. in the acquired property without awaiting for finalisation of the case under sections 8 to 10 of the Act. On or about 27th June, 1979, a memorandum was issued by the Director of Secondary Education to Path Bhavan enquiring whether acquisition was urgent enough to justify immediate acquisition and whether the school was in a position to and was otherwise agreeable to