Dinshaw Italia vs State of Hyderabad

Jaganmohan Reddy, J.—This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari and prohibition against respondents, No. 1 the State of Hyderabad, No. 2 the Revenue Board, No. 3 the Collector of Warrangal and No. 4 the City Municipality of Warangal. The petitioner D. D. Italia inter alia prays for quashing the orders of the Revenue Board dated 17-8-1951 and of the Collector dated 8th Sherewar 1354F. (14-7-1945) and the entire proceedings relating to the acquisition of his land in village Lakshmipur which is included in the municipal limits of Warangal. It was further prayed that the non-applicants the Ajamjahi Mills Ltd., be directed to restore possession of such portion of the land in dispute as was made over to them after the acquisition and that they be prohibited from acquiring or taking possession of the remaining land out of Survey No. 61 belonging to the petitioner.

The petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid survey No. 61, admeasuring 8 acres 5 guntas and he is still using a part of it for his Bone Meal Factory. The record of the case discloses that on 1-9-1943, Shri Qamar Tyabji, the managing agent of the Azamjahi Mills wrote to the Taluqdar, Warangal seeking his assistance in the purchase of a plot of land for building a labour colony. He pointed out that as the labourers were scattered all over the place, he wanted to house them in one compound and wished to improve their housing and hygienic conditions generally.

For this purpose he specified certain plots which included S. No. 61 belonging to the petitioner and expressed his willingness to pay a fair price for the lands, which according to the earlier estimate made by the Taluqdar was worth between Rs. 500 and 600 per acre. He further stated that he has asked his manager, Mr. Walford, who was empowered to make a fair offer on behalf of the Mills to interview the Taluqdar.

On receipt of this letter the Tahsildar was directed to enquire from the Mills the nature of help required and to extend the necessary assistance under the rules in force. The Taluqdar, however, intimated at the same time that there was no necessity to commence any acquisition proceedings for the purpose.

By letter No. 16/17 dated 17th Aban 1352F. (22/23-9-1943) the Tahsildar of Warangal wrote to the various persons whose lands were intended to be acquired including the petitioner, informing them that their lands were required for building a labour colony for the Mills and asking them to intimate what compensation they would require for their land. They were also asked to present themselves in the Tahsil with their title deeds and to have their statements recorded and were informed that on their failing to do so proceedings will be taken according to law.

The petitioner by his letter No. 156 dated 21st Aban, 1353F. (27-9-1943) in reply to the Tahsildar''s letter refused to part with his plot No. 61 and stated that he had a Bone Meal Factory which was working and supplying the needs and requirements of the war and that previously the Azamjahi Mill had wanted to acquire this land, but he had refused the offer and that since the Azamjahi Mills were making a lot of money they could purchase some other land by negotiation.

While the matter of acquiring lands for the Mills was being taken up by the Managing Agents through the Taluqdar, on or about the 19th Isfandar 1353F. (22-1-1944) permission was sought from the Government by the Subedar of Warangal to publish a notice under sub-s. (1) of S. 150, Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in 5 of 1352F., for the extension of the Warangal Town and for the construction of a grain market.

In pursuance of this request, sanction of the Government was accorded on 25th Farwardi 1353 F. (27-2-1944) and accordingly a notification under sub-s. (1) of S. 150 was published in the Gazette Extraordinary on 27th Ardibehist, 1353F. (31-3-1944) which included the petitioner''s land S. No. 61.

On 8th Amardad 1353F. (13-6-1944) the Collector intimated to the Tahsildar that permission had been granted to acquire Survey Numbers 59, 61 and 77 situated in Lakshmipur and as it was necessary to fix the amount of compensation, he was directed to issue notice under S. 7, Land Acquisition Act and to intimate to him within two days. He was also asked to forward to him the compensation statements.

In pursuance of this order a notice purporting to be issued to the petitioner under S. 7, Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13th Amardad, 1353F. (18-6-1944) from the Office of the Tahsildar directing him to submit his claim for compensation with respect to S. No. 61.

In answer to this notice the petitioner filed an application on the 10th Sherewar 1353F. (16-7-1944) in which he stated that the Factory was producing not only Bone Meal, but Fertilisers which were greatly in demand for implementing the policy of the Government of Hyderabad and the Government of India in their grow more food schemes.

He pointed out the great value of this Factory and the impending visit of the American Mission etc., and asked for reconsideration of this matter; but he said if the Government still insist on acquiring this land, they should pay compensation well in advance so as to enable him to acquire a suitable land adjacent to the Railway Station for construction of the Factory and to continue the work of the Factory uninterrupted.

He further informed them that he would lose Rs. 30,000 per year, which is the present income of the Factory and suggested that the proceedings for acquisition be dropped; otherwise large amount of compensation will have to be paid having regard to the present income of the Factory.

On 16th Meher 1353F., the Tahsildar fixed the compensation for each of the lands having regard to the nearness of the road, locality and their usefulness and sent the file to the Collector for his confirmation and on 20th Meher, 1353F., he wrote to the President, Municipal Council, that acquisition proceedings have been concluded for the construction of the grain market and that the file was being sent back to the Municipal Council.

As these proceedings were going on, on the 27th Aban, 1353F. (2-10-1944) Mr. Ramlal the then Revenue Secretary, who subsequently became a member of the revenue board, against whose order this writ petition has been filed, wrote to the Collector, Warangal, that he was directed by Hon''ble Revenue Member to acquire the area required for the construction of the Azamjahi Labour Colony.

He further stated that on the proposal of the Municipal Council, Warangal, a notification had already been issued under S. 7, Land Acquisition Act and that now the Collector has to take action for the issue of a compensation award. He invited the attention of the Taluqdar to Ss. 159 and 160, Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in, 1352F. which deal with the effect of the issue of a notice under S. 150.

It would, however, appear that at the request of the Collector, the Managing Agent of the, Azamjahi Mills by his letter of 7-11-1944 sent a cheque for Rs. 85,570 to be paid to the owners of the land secured for Azamjahi Mills, and that the Collector had also written to the Mills intimating the survey numbers, including the petitioner''s survey number, proposed to be acquired and which had met the approval of the representative of the mills.

Pursuant to the above letter, the Taluqdar issued a notice on 2nd Isfandar, 1354F, (4-1-1945) to the petitioner to appear and submit his claim with respect to S. No. 61 and fixed 7th Isfandar, 1354F. (9-1-1945) as a date for appearance. But this notice was neither served on the petitioner nor on his Manager but was said to have been affixed to his house as the date of his arrival was not known.

On the 4th Isfandar, 1354 F. (6-1-1945) the Tahsildar of Warangal also issued a notice to the owners of the lands intimating that the Taluqdar had already issued a notice on 2nd Isafandar for, determining the compensation to be fixed on the 7th Isfander, and that they were required to present themselves before him with their title deed on that date during office hours.

It appears that this notice was also not served on the petitioner. On the 6th Isfander, 1354F (8-1-45) the Tahsildar forwarded the counterpart of his earlier notice with the acknowledgment of the landowners except that of the petitioner, to the Taluqdar and intimated to him that he had already given his opinion on the objection of Raghavendra Rao on 14th Azur, 1354 Fasli (19-10-1944) and has again inspected the spot, but he is still of the same opinion.

With respect to the other objections which were all of a similar nature he stated that he had already submitted his detailed report on 27th Bahman, 1354F. (20-12-44).

Before the Collector took action on this letter or gave his award on 26th Khurdad, 1354F. (30-4-1945) the Revenue Secretary wrote to him drawing attention to the defects in the acquisition proceedings and asking him not to take possession until these defects were remedied. Notwithstanding these directions, it appears that on 8th Sherewar 1354F. (14-7-1945) the Taluqdar accepted the recommendations made by the Tahsildar on the notice issued on 13th Amardad, 1353F. (18-7-1944) and gave his award in which he directed that a copy of it be sent to the President, Municipal Council, Warangal for providing funds. It may be observed that this award was not communicated to the petitioner nor was his signature taken thereon.

The President of the Municipality who was the Taluqdar, by a letter dated 10th Sherewar, 1354F. (16-7-1945) addressed to Qamar Tyabji, Managing Agent of the Azamjahi Mills, intimated to him that a compensation of Rs. 1,37,177-2-0 has been fixed by the Taluqdar of which a sum of Rs. 85,570-0-0 had already been received from the Mills by a cheque and he was therefore requested to send the balance of the amount.

He was informed that if the parties go to Court the Mills will have to abide by the Court''s decision which will in no case be less than the Taluqdar''s award, that in the Civil Court, Mills have to be made a party as a defendant and that as per rules Mills will have to pay according to the compensation fixed by the Court.

In order to comply with the legal formalities the Taluqdar in his letter dated 22nd Dai, 1355F. (26-11-1945) in answer to the letter of Sri Qamar Tyabji dated 13-3-1945 asked for an unequivocal statement that the Azamjahi Mills will undertake to pay the amounts in case the Civil Court enhances the compensation. This assurance was given on 22-1-1946 by the Azamjahi Mills.

By another letter of 13-3-1945 addressed to the Collector, the Managing Agents stated that in case the Collector''s award is contested in a Civil Court the Mills are prepared to defray the expenses of the case and expressed the hope that as the land was being acquired for housing purposes, the Mills will not be made a party to the case but that the case will be between the parties and the Government.

The petitioner who evidently got to know of the proceedings applied to the Government on 15th Ardibehest 1355F. (19-3-1946) objecting to the illegality of the proceedings for acquisition and the grant of the land to the Labour Colony. It may, here, be stated that some of the other owners whose land was acquired had by that time applied for their cases to be sent to the Court for decision under S. 14, Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act.

It further appears from the record that in view of these applications the Revenue Department consulted its legal adviser who was of the opinion that the proceedings were illegal and void. Later the Government again consulted the legal remembrancer in 1357F. who was also of the same opinion. At this stage it may be noted that the Government allowed the factory and a portion of the land to remain in possession of the petitioner; but some portions of land however had already been taken over and a labour colony was built thereon.

After the police action the petitioner applied in 1359F., to the Civil Administrator for payment of a substantial compensation or alternatively to cancel the acquisition proceedings. This request was evidently rejected and the Civil Administrator of Warangal gave notice to the petitioner on 2-11-1950 to vacate the factory and hand over possession thereof in pursuance of the directions of the Government.

On 21-12-1950 the petitioner Sled an application challenging the Civil Administrator''s authority and all the previous proceedings but he was informed on 9-1-1951 by the Civil Administration that the order of the Taluqdar given seven years ago cannot be cancelled.

Against this order the petitioner appealed to the Revenue Board which dismissed it on 17-8-1951 on the ground that a perusal of the records of the Warangal Municipal Office and Collector''s Office show that according to the Master Plan prepared by the Town Planner, the area in question has been ear-marked for the construction of the Labour Colony and is required for the purpose of the completion of the local lay-out prepared by the Town Planner and sanctioned by Government.

The Revenue Board further observed that the, petitioner knew about the compensation proceedings and that there were several applications of his in the file which showed that he had knowledge of them. As he failed to take action as provided in the Land Acquisition Act asking for a transfer of his case to a Civil Court within the prescribed period, the petitioner had forfeited his right now to request for the transfer of his case to the Civil Court and the award given in 1354F. must therefore stand.

The learned advocate for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as the Bone Meal Factory and a major portion of the land was not taken possession of, he has a right to challenge the proposed dispossession on the ground: (1) under Art. 31 of the Constitution, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his property except under the due authority of law and (2) that as the proceedings were not taken in conformity with the provisions of the Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in and the Land Acquisition Act, the award of the Collector is void and of no effect.

The learned advocate while repelling these contentions urged some preliminary grounds for dismissing the application without entering into the merits of the case. He inter alia submits (a) that the petitioner has delayed taking proper steps and has not availed himself of the remedies open to him under the Land Acquisition Act (b) that he submitted to the jurisdiction and by taking part in the proceedings took a chance of success. For the aforesaid reasons the learned Government Advocate contends that the petitioner should not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

With respect to the first preliminary ground namely that the petitioner delayed taking proper steps and omitted to avail himself of the remedies under the Land Acquisition Act, it is true that until the Police Action the Government itself was advised that proceedings taken by the Collector were illegal and void and the Revenue Secretary had, before the award was made, directed the Collector not to take possession of the land until all the legal formalities had been observed.

Subsequent to the award also both the legal adviser to the Revenue Department as well as the legal remembrancer had for different reasons advised the Government that the proceedings taker by the Collector were illegal. It is perhaps due to this consciousness that the Government did not attempt to take possession of the Bone Meal Factory except for that portion of the land which was already made over to the Mills for building a labour colony.

When after the Police Action attempts were made to take possession of the factory and the land under the previous award, the petitioner challenged the validity of the award and made every attempt to persuade the Government to drop the proceedings. In this way the Government itself took more than five years to take possession of the Bone Meal Factory and the land.

As to the contention that this application under Art. 226 should not be entertained because remedies were open to the petitioner, who, it is said could have applied for a reference to the Court and there challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings, we may observe, that the provisions of S. 14 are the only provisions under which a reference to the Court is provided for. This remedy merely confines the reference to the objections relating to the measurement of land or the amount of compensation payable or the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested.

There is, however, no provision in the Act to enable an owner to challenge the validity of the acquisition order or the want of jurisdiction in making it. Such matter can only be challenged in a suit under the Specific Relief Act, but as long as the factory and the greater portion of the petitioner''s land were not taken possession of, he merely contended himself by complaining to the Government to have the proceedings cancelled which it could have done under S. 39 of the Act. (17) With reference to the second of the preliminary grounds urged by the learned Advocate for the Government, namely, that the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction and having taken his chance of success he cannot now challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings, we may point out that in -- ''Farquharsan v. Morgan'', 1894 1 QB 552 (A) the Court of appeal made a distinction between the latent want of jurisdiction, i.e., something becoming manifest in the course of proceedings and a patent want of jurisdiction i.e., want of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the proceedings.

It is true that although their Lordships observed that in the case of latent want of jurisdiction, there has been a great conflict of judicial opinion as to whether grant of a writ was discretionary or not, the authorities were unanimous in deciding that where want of jurisdiction is patent, the grant of a writ of prohibition follows as a matter of course.

In our view, if the land acquisition officer had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under the provisions either of the Land Acquisition Act or of the Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in, the mere fact that the petitioner once in answer to the notice given by the Tahsildar, who under the Land Acquisition Act, was not authorised to give such a notice, had submitted his objections protesting against the acquisition proceedings does not either amount to a submission to the jurisdiction or make the proceedings invalid. In this view of the matter, the preliminary grounds urged by the Advocate for the Government fail.

Now as regards the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the provisions of the Constitution apply and that he is entitled to challenge the proposed action of the Government to take possession of the petitioner''s factory and land, the learned Advocate for the Government relying on the authority of -- Keshavan Madhava Menon Vs. The State of Bombay, ; -- '' Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others, and Habeeb Mohamed Vs. The State of Hyderabad, contends that no retrospective effect can be given to the Constitution which is prospective.

In our view since an attempt to take possession of the factory is still being made after the Constitution has come into force, it seems futile to contend that the application of the petitioner cannot be entertained and that he is not legitimately entitled to challenge the attempt to dispossess him in contravention of the provisions of Art. 31 of the Constitution by praying for the issue of an appropriate writ under Art. 226.

The question in this case as has been sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the Government is not of a retrospective application of the Constitution; and we do not therefore propose to deal with these cases of the Supreme Court which have been cited in support of this contention. What we have to see is whether the Government is seeking to acquire the petitioner''s Bone Meal Factory and the land on which it is situated after the Constitution came into force.

The answer to this question depends on what is meant by the word ''acquisition'' in Art. 31 of the Constitution. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of - The State of West Bengal Vs. Subodh Gopal Bose and Others, , interpreted the word ''acquisition'' and its grammatical variations in the context of Art. 31 and the entries of Sch. 7, not in a narrow sense but in the ordinary sense. This was further clarified by Mahajan J., as he then was, in -- Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay Vs. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and Others, where he observed:

With great respect I am unable to accept the narrow view that acquisition necessarily means acquisition of title in whole or part of the property. It has been rightly said that a close and literal construction of constitutional provisions made for the security of person and property deprives them of half their efficacy and ends in a gradual depredation of the right as if the right consisted more in sound than in substance.

In other words such provisions cannot be construed merely by taking a dictionary in hand. The word acquisition has quite a wide concept, meaning the procuring of property or the taking of it permanently or temporarily. It does not necessarily imply the acquisition of legal title, by the State in the property, taken possession of.

We propose to examine the proceedings leading up to the award of 8th Sherewar 1354F. in the light of the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and to determine whether acquisition had taken place before the Constitution or whether an attempt to acquire the land and factory is in effect being made after the Constitution. Under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act which is based upon the analogous provisions of the Indian Land Acquisition Act of 1894 the award is a mere tender of compensation made by the Collector to the owner of the land which is proposed to be acquired.

The proceedings taken by the Collector are not judicial proceedings and his award not being a decree, cannot be enforced as such. It may be pointed out in this connection that the Government can discontinue proceedings under S. 39 of the Act (corresponding to S. 48, Indian Land Acquisition Act) at any time before taking possession of the property.

If, however, acquisition is completed by taking possession under S. 12 of the Act (corresponding to S. 16, Indian Land Acquisition Act) the party is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Collector. It would therefore appear that taking possession of the property is an important element in the acquisition proceedings.

There is, in our view, no doubt that if the proceedings taken by the Collector suffer from a patent want of jurisdiction, the petitioner can challenge the validity of the proceedings inasmuch, as the Government propose to take possession of the Bone Meal Factory and the Government propose to take possession of the Bone Meal. Factory and the major portion of the land from the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Art. 31 of the Constitution.

It now remains for us to consider whether there is a patent want of jurisdiction in the proceedings taken to acquire the petitioner''s factory and land. It is contended that the acquisition was made not for public purposes as contemplated under the Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in, but under Ss. 34 to 36 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, for the purposes of the company. By reason of the non-compliance with the provisions of the said section, the proceedings are ultra vires and of no effect.

In order to decide this controversy it is necessary to examine briefly the provisions of the Sanitary Powers A''in and the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Under sub-s. (1) of S. 150, Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in the Government may notify any area in the State as an area in which no building is to be erected or re-erected except in accordance with a regional or town plan or a local lay out sanctioned by the Government in the manner prescribed by rules made under the Section.

Sub-section (2) then empowers the Government to make regional and town planning rules to regulate the lay-out, improvement and development of urban and other areas. Sub-section (3) enumerates specifically without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-s. (2) the matters about which rules may be made. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that because sub-s. (2) of S. 150 prohibits the erection or re-erection of buildings except in conformity with the regional or town plan or local layout sanctioned by the Government in the manner prescribed by rules, the publication of a notification under sub-s. (1) of S. 150 and a regional or town plan or a local layout sanctioned by the Government and notified under S. 151 are essential.

We do not think it necessary to deal with this aspect of the argument except to say that before the Government can acquire any land there must be a local layout sanctioned by the Government. All that sub-s. (1) of S. 150 intends to achieve is to prohibit the erection or re-erection of any building in a particular area which has been notified except in conformity with the regional and town plan or local layout sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the A''in.

If the Government wants to acquire any land notified for the purposes of regional or town plan or local layout it need not under S. 158 of the A''in, publish a notification under S. 5, Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act declaring that the land is to be required for Government or public purposes, because under the provisions of S. 150 of the A''in a notification under sub-s. (1) of S. 150 operates in respect of the land for the purposes of the regional or town plan or local layout as a declaration under S. 5 of the said Act, and no further declaration is necessary.

Although under the provisions of S. 158 it is not incumbent upon the Government or the Officer authorised in that behalf to take steps for the acquisition of any such land, if the land is not acquired within three years of the publication of the notification it shall cease to have effect as a declaration under S. 5, Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act.

In the present case it is an admitted fact that while the acquisition proceedings had been taken and some portion of the land was taken possession of, there was no "regional or town plan or local lay out" sanctioned by the Government until it was published in the Government Gazette No. 4 of 24th Azur, 1359F. (24-10-1949) in accordance with the rules framed under sub-s. (2) of S. 150 published in Gazette No. 52 Part I F. 484 of 23rd Bahman 1356F. (23-12-1946).

Even if the acquisition was made under Sanitary Powers A''in for building the grain market as originally contemplated, a fact which is challenged by the petitioner, the entire proceedings taken for the said acquisition were not in conformity with the said A''in and suffered from a patent want of jurisdiction.

The various stages of the proceedings as disclosed by the record show that the acquisition was not for the purposes of grain market. There is no doubt in our minds, on the facts as appear from the record, that the Azamjahi Mills Ltd. had made strenuous efforts to acquire the land of the petitioner and other land-holders and when it was found that the petitioner categorically stated to the Tahsildar in answer to his notice of 7th Aban 1352F., that he would not sell the land at any price because of his valuable Bone Meal Factory which was situated on the land, the Mills exerted their influence on the Revenue Minister of the day, who, taking advantage of a declaration under S. 150(1), Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in directed that proceedings be taken under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land.

It is obvious that the declaration u/s 150(1), Sanitary Powers A''in itself was made for the purposes of extension of the Warangal Town and for the construction of a grain market for which purpose the Tahsildar gave notices purporting to be under S. 7 of the Act and completed compensation proceedings, after which the file was sent to the Collector. No action, however, was taken by the Collector on the recommendations of the Tahsildar for nearly five months.

It is only after the letter of the Revenue Secretary intimating to the Collector that the Azamjahi Mills wanted the land for construction of a colony and that the Revenue Minister had directed the speedy acquisition of the land that the Collector issued a notice to the petitioner and also directed the Tahsildar to issue a notice to him asking him to appear before him for fixation of compensation.

Both these notices were not served on the petitioner and the compensation award was given as already noticed on 8th Sherewar 1354F which was also not communicated to the petitioner as required by S. 11, Land Acquisition Act.

The record shows beyond doubt that the acquisition proceedings were colourable and were in fact being made by the Government for the Azamjahi Mills which was paying for it. The Mills not only sent a cheque for Rs. 85,570/- on request of the Collector as compensation to be paid to the owners of the land even before an award was made by the Collector, but had also subsequent to the award given an undertaking at the instance or the Collector and the Chairman of the Municipal Board that it would pay any enhanced compensation which may be ordered by the Court.

Once it is held that the land was not being acquired for the purposes of ''regional or town plan or local lay-out'' under the Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in a declaration under S. 5 would become necessary. If the land has to be acquired for the purpose of a company, the provisions of Chap. VII should be followed, viz., that in addition to a declaration under S. 5 and notice under S. 7, the company for which acquisition is being made, shall under S. 35 on the Taluqdar''s requisition submit a formal agreement providing for the following matters, viz.,:

(1) the payment to Government by the company of the cost of the acquisition of the land and the compensation which may be fixed therefor;

(2) the terms on which the land shall be held by the company;

(3) the time within which company shall execute the work of construction or other work for which the land is required.

(4) the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work of construction or other work.

Under S. 36 of the Act on the land being made over to the company, the agreement referred to in S. 35 should be published in the ''Jareeda'' and the conditions mentioned therein will thereafter have the force of law. It would appear that some attempt has been made to provide for one of the matters set out under S. 35, viz.,

the payment to Government by the Company, of the cost of the acquisition of the land, and the compensation which may be fixed therefor.

When statutory rights abridging the right of ownership to property have been conferred upon the Government, the conditions prescribed by the statute for the exercise of such rights must be strictly fulfilled. If this is not done courts will afford relief to persons who are aggrieved by the non-compliance or nominal compliance with the provisions of the statute.

In the result we are of the view that the proceedings for the acquisition of the petitioner''s land are neither in conformity with the provisions of Hyderabad Sanitary Powers A''in, nor in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act and are hence invalid and of no effect. In so far as the land which has already been taken possession of by the Government and in which a labour colony has been built, we are powerless to grant any remedy in these proceedings but with respect to the Bone Meal Factory and the large portion of the land which is still in possession of the petitioner we direct the issue of a writ Certiorari and Prohibition against the respondents quashing the proceedings of the 8th Shehrewar 1354F. and the order of the Revenue Board dated 17-8-1951 and prohibit the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of his land and Bone Meal Factory which is in his possession except under the due authority of law. The applicant will have his costs which we assess at Rs. 50/-.