Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS is a Rule issued upon the respondents to show cause why writs in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus & Prohibition should not be issued under Art. 226 (1) of the Constitution, to restrain them from giving effect to an order made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly, directing the taking of possession of a certain piece of land, to be made over to an institution known as the 'King George V Silver Jubilee Maternity Home & Child Welfare Centre.'
(2.) THE facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner is the owner of a plot of land situated at Hooghly, bearing C. S. Dag No. 1121 of Mouza Hooghly, P. S. Chinsurah District Hooghly. This plot of land is vacant & adjoins the above -mentioned Public Institution. The said institution urgently requires land for extension of staff quarters & improvement of the clinic & this plot has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, & the order complained of is an order for taking possession of the land in order to vest it in the acquiring authority & then to make it over to the said institution. The petitioner purchased this land in 1933. He has not built any structure on it, although he has considerably improved it by levelling, fencing etc. He says that the ancestral house of his family adjoins the plot & although he lives there now with his brothers, the house itself has been allotted to his brothers, the idea being that he should have this plot for building a house for himself. According to him, he could not build a house because of the scarcity of building materials, but he has not abandoned the intention of doing so. By Notification No. 10286 L. A. dated 30 -11 -1949, published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 8 -12 -1949, under S. 4, Land Acquisition Act, it was duly notified that the land was likely to be acquired for extension of the Staff Quarters & improvement of the "King George V. Silver Jubilee Maternity Home & Child Welfare Centre', & all persons interested were requested to file their objections before the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly. The petitioner duly filed his objection under S. 5A, Land Acquisition Act. After hearing his objections, & making necessary enquiries, it was decided that the acquisition should be made. I myself cannot think of a more deserving object for acquiring land by the State than for the extension of a Maternity Home & Child Welfare Centre; & no fact has been placed before me to show that the decision by the Land Acquisition Collector was wrong. The real ground upon which the petitioner bases his application is that the provisions of Ss. 11 & 12 of the Act were not complied with. It is argued that non -compliance with the procedure laid down by these sections has made the award of the Special Land Acquisition Collector dated 10 -4 -1951, bad, & as such, no possession could be taken under S. 16.
(3.) TO appreciate the objection, it is necessary to recapitulate the procedure which is followed under the Land Acquisition Act 1 (1) of 1894, for the acquisition of lands. Whenever it appears to the Provincial Govt. that land in any locality is needed for a 'public purpose', a notification to that effect must be given in the official Gazette & the Collector must also cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. It is for the Provincial Govt, to decide what is a 'Public Purpose', - 'Wijeyesekera v. Festing',, (1919) A. C. 646, 'Province of Bombay v. Khusaldas Advani', : AIR 1950 SC 222. After these preliminary steps have been taken, it becomes lawful for the officers to the Govt. to enter & survey the land; & to take all necessary steps to find out whether the land is really adapted for the purpose. (S - 4).;