The main legal point established is that for land acquisition by a local authority, the prior approval of the appropriate Government is necessary, and only a 'person interested' as defined under the Act can object to the acquisition proceedings.

M.M. Pareed Pillay, Ag. C.J.

1. Challenge is against the land acquisition proceedings initiated for acquisition of 2 and odd acres of land in Velloor Panchayat for constructing a Bus Stand cum Shopping Complex for the first respondent Panchayat. Contentions of the appellants is that the acquisition proceedings initiated cannot have any justification in view of the violation of S.3(f)(vii) of the Land. Acquisition Act. The argument advanced is that in view of S.3(f) (vii), acquisition by a local authority can be justified only in a case where it has been sponsored by the Government or with the prior approval of the appropriate Government and the lack of prior approval vitiates the proceedings.

2. Expression "public purpose" is defined under the Act. S.3(f) contains definition of "public purpose". When a local authority wants to acquire any land for any other scheme of development prior approval of the appropriate Government is necessary. First respondent Panchayat relied on a copy of G.O. Rt. 3554/94/LAD dated 9-8-1994 issued by the Government in the Local Administration department granting permission for acquisition of the land in question. This would meet the aforesaid contention of the appellants. Ext.P-8 shows that the District Collector, Kottayam has reported that the proceedings have reached a very advanced stage and considerable amount of work has been done by the Land Acquisition authorities and that the Government have issued sanction for the acquisition of land.

3. A "person interested" is specifically defined under S.3(b) of the Act. 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; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. S.5-A provide that any person interested in any land which has been notified under S.4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. Only a person interested can object to the acquisition proceedings. As "person interested" is specifically defined under the statute, only a person who has some interest in the property or in an easement affecting the land alone can object to the proceedings. The definition makes the position clear that a person interested must have interest in the compensation awarded on account of the acquisition of the land. A person who has no claim in the compensation likely to be awarded as a result of the acquisition proceedings cannot obviously challenge the proceedings. Appellants have no interest in the compensation amount likely to be awarded in the acquisition proceedings.

4. Appellants relying on Bangalore Medical Trust V.B.S, Muddappa 1991 (4) SCC 54 para 35 contended that as a public interest litigation they have perfect competency to initiate the proceedings before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. As the proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act which is a self contained Code and as the appellants cannot at all be considered to be persons interested in challenging the proceedings, it has to be half that they are not competent to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

5. It is also pertinent to note that the challenge against the acquisition proceedings taken by the land owners proved abortive and W.A.778 of 1993 ended in its dismissal. As the Government have found that the proceedings for acquisition has reached advanced stage and the suitability of the land to be a acquired was decided by this Court in W.A.778 of 1993 and as sanction was also subsequently obtained for the acquisition, there is no scope for interference with the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge was well justified in dismissing the Original Petition.