The special remedy provided under S.49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act can only be invoked by the owner and not by a tenant or any other 'person interested'. No fresh declaration or other proceedings are necessary when the owner exercises the option to acquire the whole building.

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. Different considerations arise under S.49(2). In the case of any claim under S.23(1). thirch. by a person interested it is open to the Government at any time before the Collector has made his award. if it is of opinion that the claim is unreasonable or excessive to order the acquisition of the whole of the land of which the land first sought to be acquired forms a part. Certainly the option is with the Government. under S.23 (t) thirch. the Court has to take into consideration the damage. if any. sustained by the. person interested. at the time of the Collector taking possession of the land. by reason of severing of such land from his other land. If the Government is of opinion that the claim made by the interested person is unreasonable or excessive. it can definitely order acquisition of the whole land. S.49(3) makes the position clear that in such a situation no fresh declaration or other proceedings under Ss.6 to 10 is necessary. The essential difference between S.49(1) and S.49(2) is that in the former case where acquisition of a portion of house. manufactory or building becomes necessary the owner is given the option whereas in the latter case the option is with Government to acquire the severed portion of land also.

4. From a reading of S.49(1). it is apparent that it is only the owner who can desire the whole of the house. manufactory or building to be acquired. The privilege to withdraw or modify the desire is also given to the owner. The word 'owner' is not defined under the Act. The expression 'person interested' is defined in S.3(b). The expression 'person interested' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. A person is deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. As S.49(1) is categorical that only the owner can exercise the option a tenant of a building cannot advance a diametrically opposite contention. Definitely he has no say in the matter.

5. 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 suc