( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ setting aside the Award, dated 27-4-1970, given by Land acquisition Officer, Gwalior in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/56/23/7 (Annexure-B ). The petitioner has also challenged Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as being unconstitutional.

( 2 ) THE case of' the petitioner, a body corporate constituted under the Town improvement Trust Act is that in the city of Gwalior near Jinsinala an open piece of land, commonly known as Garud Saheb ka Bada, 3 bigas and 5 biswas in area, was acquired for Housing Development Scheme. The petitioner has referred to the different notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the act. Tahsildar, Gwalior obtained possession over the land and handed it over to the petitioner on 29-11-1957.

( 3 ) NOTIFICATION under Section 9 was also issued in the proceedings relating to the acquisition. Some persons, as have been named in paragraph 6 of the petition, submitted their objections and claimed compensation. Respondent No. 1 was also one of the claimants and he claimed an amount of Rs. 1,81,473. 45 p, as the amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer after an enquiry gave an award of Rs. 1,22,284. 10 p. to Respondent No, 1 for his part of the land.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was very much excessive and he did not correctly apply the principles as are laid down in Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner in support of this has furnished documents to show that after acquisition and subsequent development wherein they had to incur expenditure the land could not fetch adequate value. As regards the principles of Section 23 of the Act it was strenuously urged that the Land Acquisition Officer completely ignored the principles and gave an award which on the face of it is arbitrary.

( 5 ) IT was further urged that since the petitioner at whose costs the land was acquired has no other remedy, it could challenge the award given by the Land acquisition Officer, which is an inferior Tribunal, only by way of this petition. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument in support of his prayer in the petition that Section 50 of the Act was unconstitutional.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further it would be pertinent to refer to the award, a copy of which has been filed. In para. 29 of the award the Land Acquisition Officer has observed that the petitioner Trust did not file any evidence as regards the market value of the land sought to be acquired. The two engineers, examined on behalf of the Trust, even admitted before the Land Acquisition Officer that near-about the land under acquisition there is no land which may have been sold so that the rates could be ascertained on that ground. They, however, mentioned that the rates of the land of the Trust during the erstwhile Gwalior State was 8 annas square ft. and so the land be valued at that rate. This argument was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred to a number of decisions of this court as also of other Courts and the Supreme Court to show the principles that have to be followed while determining the amount of compensation of the land acquired under the Act. These principles are quite settled and we need not burden this order by a reference to those decisions. In the present case which is not by way of an appeal we would not scrutinize the evidence ourselves over again. The Land Acquisition Officer has given the award on the basis of the evidence before him. The award further shows that the Land Acquisition Officer was quite alive to the principles to be followed for determining the compensation. He has discussed the relevant evidence also. On going through the award what we find is that the Land Acquisition Officer has con