Koshy, J.

Three questions arising out of interpretation of Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1804 (in short 'the Act') were referred to the Full Bench for consideration by a Division Bench of this court. These questions are:

"1. Has Collector vested with power to reject the claim under Section 49(1) put forward by the owner to acquire entire building and proceed with acquisition of part of the building without court interventions?

2. Whether tenant can file a writ petition challenging the action taken by the Collector when the option under Section 49(1) is exercised by the landlord?

3. When the Collector accepted the option to acquire the entire building, whether only building materials are to be acquired or the entire building including the land where it is situated also need be acquired?"

2. W.P. (C) No. 5512 of 2006 was filed by the owner of the building situated in survey No.1254/1 of Vanchiyoor village, Thiruvananthapuram. A notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published for acquiring part of the land and building owned by the petitioner. Thereafter, declaration under section 4 (6) was also published according to law. Later, petitioner was asked to appear before the Land Acquisition officer on 20.1.2006 for filing a statement in writing showing the nature of interest in the land and the amount and particulars of claim and for making any objection to the measurement under section 8 of the Act. Son of the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and objection was filed signed by the petitioner expressing her desire to acquire the entire building in 0082 hectare land in survey No.1254/1 of Vanchiyoor village as contemplated under section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, a petition was also filed to the requisitioning authority also (Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority) requesting to acquire the whole building or exempt the whole building from acquisition. The tenant of the building filed W.P.(C) No.15012 of 2007 contending that only part of the building which is covered by the notification can be demolished. The above writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment without entering into the question of dispute argued, but, recording the undertaking that only a part of the building is required for widening of the approved alignment. Ext.P9 judgment in W.P. (C) No.1238 of 2006 is as follows:

"The learned counsel for the second respondent submits on instructions that only a portion of the building that is actually required for widening of the approved alignment, will be demolished. This is recorded and this writ petition is disposed of accordingly, without entering on merits."

On coming to know of the above judgment, this writ petition was filed for issuing a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction directing the respondents to acquire the whole building bearing No.25/2426 of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation standing in Survey No.1244/part of Vanchiyoor village on the basis of the desire expressed by the petitioner in terms of section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act before making the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act or withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. The tenant in the building who filed the earlier writ petition was made as additional respondent No.5. W.P. (C) NO.15012 of 2007 was filed by two tenants for directing the Land Acquisition authorities and State not to acquire any portion of the building in which they are doing business beyond the area notified under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and quash the notice for handing over possession for demolition of the entire building at the request of the landlord under section 49 (1). They relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shaji C. Varkey and another v. Collector (2007 (1) KLT 790). Since the question involved in these writ petitions were already referred including the correctness of the decisions in Shaji C. Varkey's case (supra) by refer