M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, petitioner Shambuvaiah, has challenged the two notifications issued under Ss. 3 (1) and 3 (4) of the karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Notice was issued to respondents to show cause as to why rule should not be issued. Respondents have been served and represented by the Government pleader. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the notification issued under S. 3 (1) of the Act, which is at ex. A, a total extent of 3 acres 30 guntas were notified for acquisition for formation of house sites for allotment to persons who were without sites. The petitioner and others filed their objections. It is not, disputed that they have been given a hearing in accordance with the procedure prescribed under S. 3 (4) of the Act. First and foremost Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the final notification issued under s. 3 (4) of the Act, was not a valid one inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mi the facts of thend to case, considered the report of the Assistant commissioner on the basis of the objections filed by the petitioner and replies and views of the Block Development Officer who initiated the proceedings. ( 3 ) SHRI C. Shivappa, learned High court Government Pleader, has produced the records pertaining to the acquisition. The original order is seen and in that there is clear indication that the Deputy Commissioner (1st respondent) has applied his mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner and others. He has written a brief order over-ruling the objections of the petitioner and has acted on the report of the Block development Officer as to the suitability of the site in question for locating this lay-out for distribution of house sites. On perusal of the order in question, Shri. Sridharan, gave up the challenge to the notifications on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mind in passing the order resulting in the final notification under S. 3 (4) of the Act. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel next contended that the acquisition had been made not for the purpose of giving sites for about 70 people but only to about 10. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel next contended that the acquisition had been made not for the purpose of giving sites for about 70 people but only to about 10. In para 6 of the petition, certain details are given as to how many of the so-called applicants were persons who eould move the revenue authorities for grant of house sites, and who were in need of sites. Another list is given showing the names of persons who did not belong to that village. Yet, another list is given in the same paragraph showing the names of the applicants who already possess houses and who are living as members of the joint family. The trend of the arguments is that people who were not residents of the village were not entitled to grant of sites and that people who already had houses were also not entitled to grant of house sites and therefore, the whole exercise of the power was with the object of victimising the petitioner and others to deprive them of the land. This argument is difficult to accept having perused the records. In the scheme of the Act, there is no prohibition for non-residents of the village to apply for the sites. Similarly, the argument that nearly 17 applicants were living as members of the joint family is also not a ground to hold that they were not entitled to house sites. There is no express prohibition in the Act for a member of the joint family to seek a site under the Act. Therefore, the argument has to be rejected. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that there were better lands belonging to Government close by to the village which were more suitable than the petitioner's land. This again is not a ground on which this Court can sit in judgment over the choice made by the authorities under the Act for locating the sites to those persons who are entitled to it. The learned Government Pleader, shri. C Shivappa, has pointed out from the records that the said Government lands have been reserved for locating school, playground and other civic amenities for the village. Therefore the attack based on is ground also is liable to be rejected. the further contended that the notification did not disclose clearly the area which was sought to be acquired. This argument has no basis. Therefore the attack based on is ground also is liable to be rejected. the further contended that the notification did not disclose clearly the area which was sought to be acquired. This argument has no basis. The notifications clearly mention the boundaries from which it is possible to ascertain the 3 acres and 30 guntas that is acquired. It is averred in the petition that S. No. 43/1 contains about 7 acres and S. No. 43/2 contains about 3 acres 12 guntas. It is not difficult to identify the property acquired for location of house sites from out of these survey numbers. Therefore, this argument also must fail. ( 6 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel contended on the basis of a decision of this court in the case of Patel Munireddy v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore (1) that the authorities under the Act have not followed the rule recommending measures in the matter of selection of sites and therefore the acquisition was liable to be set aside. The said recommendation was a recommendation made by the Central Government in the form of a scheme to enable the State Government to pass necessary legislation for acquisition of land to grant the same to those who did not posseses sites for building their own house. The learned judge in the said decision has derived assistance from the said scheme suggested by the Central Government to explain the scheme and scope of the Act and no more. Nowhere in the decision, is it said that the said scheme of the Central Government acts as a prohibition for the authorities under the Act to acquire any particular bit of land, which in their opinion, is suitable for locating the sites to be granted. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this petition is liable to be rejected and it is so rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs, ( 8 ) SHRI. C. Shivappa, learned High court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within three weeks from today. --- *** --- .