The declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is final and conclusive, and any part of the compensation paid out of public funds, no matter how small, fulfills the proviso to Section 6(1).

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The appellant in these appeals is a ryot cultivating ryotwari land in the village of Kowali which is in the West Godavari district. In 1935 a small part of his holding, to be exact five cents of an acre, was acquired by the Provincial Government for the purpose of the construction of a water channel which was required for the irrigation of three holdings of ryotwari land cultivated by other persons in the same village. The compensation" awarded was Rs. 77-10-0. The. appeals arise out of a suit which the appellant filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ellore for a declaration that the acquisition was illegal on the ground that the land was not required for a public purpose. It was further stated that as the Government had on-ly contributed one anna to the compensation awarded the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Acit had not been complied with. The Distirct Munsiff dismissed the suit. He held that it was not open to theplaintiff to go behind the declaration issued under section-6 (1) of the Land Aqquisition Act and that the proviso to Section 6(1) had not been infringed but he directed that the parties should bear their own costs. -On appeal the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur agreed with the District Munsiff that the suit should be dismissed, but disagreed with him with regard to the order for costs. The Subordinate Judge held that as the Provincial Government had successfully defended the suit it was entitled to costs. S.A. No. 1161 of 1944 is from the decree dismissing the suit and S.A. No. 1162 of 1944 is from the Subordinate Judges order with regard to costs. The appeals have been placed before a Full Bench for decision as there-is a conflict of authority on the effect of the proviso to Section 6(1).

2. Before dealing with the conflict it is necessary to decide, whether a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is final or whether it is open to the Court to inquire and decide whether the land was really required for a public purpose. Section 5-A; gives a person the right to object to a proposed acquisition Any objection preferred must be inquired into by the Collector, who is required to submit the case for the decision of the Provincial Government. The section states that the decision of the Provincial Government on the objection shall be final. In this case the appellant did object and his objection was heard by the Collector who in accordance with Section 5-A submitted the record of the proceedings to the Provincial Government. The Provincial Governments decision was that the acquisition should proceed.

3. By an order dated the 7th April, 1936, under Section 6, the Provincial Government declared that the land in suit was needed for a public purpose and appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ellore, to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act and directed him to take order for its acquisition. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 states that the declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company as the case may be; and, after making the declaration, the Provincial Government may acquire the land in the manner provided by the Act. Sub-section (3) makes it quite clear that the declaration of the Provincial Government cannot be questioned in a Court of law. Of course, if the Provincial Government in fraud of its powers directed land to be acquired a suit would no doubt lie; but where there is no charge against the Provincial Government that it has acted in fraud of its powers, its action in directing the acquisition cannot be challenged in a Court of law. In answer to a direct question put by the Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant very properly said that it could not be said that the Provincial Government had acted in fraud of its powers.

4. We may mention that in Wijeyasekara v. Festing (1919) A.C. 646, the Privy Council held that where the Governor of Ceylon under the Ceylon Or