BAPNA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and has arisen in the following circumstances: - A Notification was issued by the then Government of Jaipur on the 7th of February, 1949, under sec. 4 of the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act that a Nohara of Mangal Chand petitioner, situated in Beri-ka-Bas was likely to be needed for the public purpose of a girls' school, known as "veer Balika Vidyalaya". A second Notification under sec. 6 of the Act was issued by the Rajasthan Government on the 19th August, 1949, declaring that the land was required for the said girls' school, and the compensation was to be awarded out of the public funds. It also authorised the Land Acquisition Officer unde sec. 7 of the Act to take further proceeding for the acquisition of the land, These proceedings continued till the 1st of February, 1950, when the Land Acquisition Officer gave an award under sec. 11 of the Act, and fixed Rs 4,599/- as compensation, and declared Mangal Ram as the person entitled to receive it. He rejected the claims of certain other persons. Proceedings for taking of possession continued, and Mangal Ram was asked to surrender his documents of title. He asked for time on more than one occasion to deposit the title deed and thereafter to receive the money, and ultimately filed this petition challenging the validity of the proceedings of acquisition of his property by the Government.
(2.) THE sole ground for challenging the acquisition, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under the provision to sec. 6 (1) of the Act no declaration could be made unless the compensation to be awarded for the acquisition of the property was to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority, and it is urged that none of these conditions were fulfilled in the present case. It was stated that the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was actually deposited by the Management of the Veer Balika Vidyalaya and not from the sources mentioned in the proviso, and, therefore, the acquisition was illegal. It transpires that the Government of Rajasthan sanctioned a grant of Rs. 8,301/- to. Veer Balika Vidyalaya on the 18th July, 1949, and actually paid the amount to the Management of the Vidyalaya on the 1st of June, 1950. The Management thereafter deposited the amount of compensation with the Land Acquisition Officer, and it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of compensation had thus come out of the pocket of Veer Balika Vidyalaya, and not out of any public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. It is of course not paid by any company. The stage of the payment of compensation comes after the award, and what is provided in sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is that it should be in contemplation at the time of making the declaration, under sec. 6 that the compensation to be awarded will be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. The Notification, which was issued in this connection, specifically mentions that the compensation is contemplated to be paid out of public revenues. The declaration was perfectly in accordance with law, and the subsequent proceedings upto the stage of award were perfectly valid. Under sec. 16 of the Act, when an award has been made, the said officer is entitled to take possession of the land, whereupon it vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. The manner of payment is provided in secs. 31 to 34 of the Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer has to tender payment to the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation under the award, or deposit the amount in a court, and in default, the Land Acquisition Officer is held liable to pay interest - at the rate of 6% per anum from the time of taking possession until payment or deposit of the amount of compensation. The petitioner, therefore, cannot resist the delivery of possession to the Land Acquisition Officer, and his only claim can be for the amount of compensation. The applicant can only succeed, if he could show that the action of the Government in issuing the Notification under sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was mala fide by an allegation that although payment of compensation by the Government was stated in the Notification, it was really not in the contemplation of the Government. But on the facts proved, it does appear to us that no case of mala fide can be established. The Government did give a grant of Rs. 8,391/- to the Vidyalaya for the purpose of extension of the building to provide better facilities for education to the girls in that institution, and under Rule 336 of the Education Code of the Jaipur State building grants were made for the purchase of sites and the erection or extension of school buildings or hostels. It is stated on behalf of the Vidyalaya, that the compensation deposited by them with the Land Acquisition Officer was directly taken from the fund granted by the Government. This would not be quite accurate, as the Government had not specifically earmarked this amount for the purchase of the site; but the amount was certainly granted by the Government as a building grant, as appears from the letter of the Administrator, Jaipur, to the Director of Education, Jaipur, dated the 18th July, 1949, sanctioning the grant. The building which is to be erected in the present case is only by way of extensions, and the Nohara was also required in connection with that extension, as appears from the affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer and Mr. Raj Roop, the Secretary of the Vidyalaya. The money granted by the Government was thus utilised in connection with the extension of the Vidyalaya, and cannot be said to be opposed to the purpose for which it was granted. According to the Education Code the Government is not actually concerned with the mode of utilisation of funds granted by it beyond seeing that the buildings for which the assistance was granted were completed by the Managing Committee within the prescribed time. So long, therefore, as the money was utilised in advancing the extension of the Vidyalaya, the Education Department had no objection to make. But their contribution would be a partial contribution to the entire building after it had been finished. In that view, it could not be said that the compensation to be awarded did not partly come out of the public revenues. Further, it would only require an adjustment between the Government and the Vidyalaya for saying that the money given by the Government may be utilised wholly or partly towards the acquisition of the property of the petitioner. So the mistake, if any, by the Government or the Vidyalaya could still be corrected and the petitioner will have no voice in this internal affair. Since the Government, as a matter of fact, contributed towards the extension of the Vidyalaya, no case of mala fide has been made out by the petitioner. As a result, this petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner will pay the costs of the Government, which are assessed at Rs. 50/-.;