The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right under S.49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394 is available only to the owner, and the tenant does not have the right to prevent the owner from exercising the right to have the entire building acquired.

Headnote:
S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394 - Interpretation of S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394 - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394, which provides the owner with the right to express the desire for the acquisition of the whole building. The section also outlines the process for the acquisition of part of a building, the determination of land ownership, and the rights of the owner and other interested parties.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a tenant, objected to the acquisition of the entire building by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the owner had expressed a desire for the acquisition. The court had previously dismissed the original petition, and the writ petitioner filed an appeal challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petitioner, as a tenant, did not have the right under S.49(1) of the Act to prevent the owner from exercising the right to have the entire building acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer had followed the legal procedure, and the court found no illegality in the acquisition process.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation and application of S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394, and the rights of the tenant and owner in the acquisition of the building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right under S.49(1) of the Act is available only to the owner, and the tenant's rights, if any, would be in a reference under S.18 of the Act. The court also emphasized that the Land Acquisition Officer had followed the legal procedure for the acquisition.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.

Judgment :-

Sreedharan, J.

Writ petitioner in O.P. 9589/1992 is the appellant., He is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single judge dated 25-1-1993, by which Original Petition has been dismissed. The issue urged before us relates to the interpretation of S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394. hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

2. The short facts germane for the decision of this appeal are as follows.- Respondents 15 to 19 in the writ petition are the owners of property comprised in Survey No. 371/1 of Aluva Village. building, bearing door No. 1/312ofChoornikkaraPanchayat, is situated in that property. The land owners were conducting a Saw Mill in that property. The machineries therein were sold to the writ petitioner as per Exhibit R15(b) dated 30-4-1971. On the same day, the writ petitioner took the shed, where the machineries were installed, for running the Saw Mill on lease. The duplicate copy of the lease deed dated 30 4-1971 is Exhibit P2. As per the terms of that lease deed, writ petitioner was to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for the building bearing door No. 1/312 of Choornikkara Panchayat. Lessee was directed not to put up any structure or to make any alteration in :be existing building. Lessor agreed to put up a smoke shed in the property for the use of the lessee in connection with the running of the Saw Mill. While writ petitioner was thus in enjoyment of thebuilding under the lease, Government published a notification for acquiring a portion of the properly comprised in Survey No. 371/1 of Aluva Village for widening the National Highway 47. The properly notified took in a portion of the building in which the Saw Mill is functioning. Since a portion of the building alone fell within the notified area, respondents 15 onwards, who are the owners, expressed their intention to have the entire building acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer agreed with the request made by the owners because only a part of the building fell within the notified area. Writ petitioner, who is the tenant, objected to the proceeding initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer for acquiring the entire building.

3. Writ petitioner earlier moved this Court by filing O.P. 1250/1992 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the Land Acquisition officer not to demolish or take possession of the buildings and machineries in the unacquired portion of Survey No. 371/1 of Aluva Village. By judgment dated 19-2-1992, this Court dismissed that Original Petition holding that writ petitioner is only a tenant of the building and it is the owner of the building to express desire as to whether the whole of such building has to be acquired or not. Since the owner has expressed a desire to the acquisition of entire building, writ petitioner's prayer to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to acquire only a portion of the building was declined. Writ petitioner challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.A. 609/1992. When the appeal was heard by a Division Bench, he sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition since the owners of the building were not made parties to the proceedings. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with leave to file fresh writ petition after impleading necessary parties. Thereupon the writ petitioner filed O.P.9589/1992, from which this appeal has arisen.

4. On behalf of respondents 15 to 19, who are the owners of the property comprised in Survey No.371/1 of Aluva Village, 15th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them, property measuring 53 cents in Survey No.371/1 of Aluva Village and the building bearing door No.1/312 of Choornikkara Village situated therein belong to them. No building was ever put up by the writ petitioner in the said property. Exhibit P2 lease deed executed by the writ petitioner specifically prohibits him from constructing any structure in the property. The buildings standing in the property has got only one door number. If

Click Here to Read the rest of this document