Acquisition must involve interest of the whole community.

These three appeals, W. A. Nos. 349,350 and 351 of 1983, are against the common judgment rendered in W.P. Nos. 1837, 1836 and 1835 of 1982 respectively by Mohan J. dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in G.O. Ms. No. 68 Revenue dated 11-1-1982, and the notification dated 15-12-1980 made in G.O. Ms. No. 2753, Revenue.

2. The father of Umraomal and Jawanthraj, appellants in W. A. 349 and 350 of 1983 respectively, purchased certain buildings in R.S. No. 80 and R.S. No. 882/2 on an extent of 5 grounds and 1030 sq. ft. of Tondiarpet village in the years 1928 and 1931. The Government granted lease of the land on 12-7-1941, on a yearly rent of Rs.500. They were living with the members of their families in the buildings constructed by them and they have also built certain shops in the ground floor and let them out to certain tenants. But the tenants committed default in the payment of rent which resulted in the appellants taking proceedings in eviction. Orders were passed evicting the tenants, but still they continued to squat on the property and they formed an association known as 'Royapuram Cemetery Road Merchants Sangam' consisting exclusively of the tenants under the appellants. They made certain untrue representations to Government and were able to persuade the Government of Tamil Nadu to terminate the lease in favour of the appellants. The Government directed the appellants to remove the superstructures. The appellants then moved this Court and filed W. P. 4154, 4180 and 4181 of 1978 and this Court observed that the proper remedy for them is to approach the Government and also directed the Government to explore the possibility of acceding to the request of the appellants. In pursuance of this order, the appellants moved the Government bringing it to the notice of the Government that they have spent nearly Rs.4,50,000, their life savings. The Government examined the matter and passed G.O. No. Ms.2730 Revenue, dated 11-12-1980 giving up the proposal for demolition of the superstructures, but agreed to pay compensation for the value of the superstructures. Under these circumstances, a notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms.No.2753 Revenue dated 15-12-1980 came to be passed. The notification stated that the public purpose for which the acquisition is made is to provide 'shopping facilities to small traders and self-employed persons'. An objection was also filed by the petitioner in W.P. 1835 of 1982, in response to a notice under S.5-A of the Act, but it was overruled and a declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in G.O. Ms. No. 68 Revenue dated 11-1-1982 and it was also published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette Extraordinary, Part II, S.2, dated 12-1-1982. The declaration is in the usual statutory form stating that the Government has been satisfied that the superstructures on the land have to be acquired for public purposes. It is under these circumstances, that the writ petitions were filed. The acquisition was attacked on various grounds, the important of which are -(1) that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be resorted to, to acquisition of superstructures alone: (2) that the Government is actuated by malice, and (3) that the Government should have resorted to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1956. The learned single Judge held that the Government can acquire the superstructures as the land belongs to Government, that there are no mala fides in the case, that the acquisition is for a public purpose, that it is open to Government to take proceedings having recourse to Central Act or to the Tamil Nadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1956 and in the end the learned Judge dismissed the petitions. These appeals are preferred against that order.

3. Mr. Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, atta