M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for orders, is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by the following order ( 2 ) I have heard Sri T. R. Rangaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 85/1 in an extent of 2 acres 23 guntas in Santhamavathur village of Kunigal Taluk. Tumkur District. The said land was notified for acquisition in terms of Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition act on 16-3-1982 and final notification was issued on 27-11-1985. In the period between the two dates mentioned above, the petitioner had approached this Court in W P No. 377 of 1984 inter alia contending that he had not been heard under sec. 5a of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) THIS Court, as is apparent from the order dated 26-10-1984 in the aforementioned writ petition despite noticing that the petitioner was absent, though served with the proceedings under Sec. 5a took place before the 3rd respondent, gave an opportunity to appear again for being heard on 15-11-1984. While doing so, it observed that the 3rd respondent land Acquisition Officer should specifically consider the objection taken by the petitioner regarding the suitability of the land for the purpose for which it was being acquired, to wit, for the establishment of the High school by the Village Panchayat. It is thereafter that the petitioner was heard through his Counsel and the final notification issued on the date mentioned above. Aggrieved by the final Notification, the present petition is preferred inter alia contending that the final notification is issued 3 years after the preliminary notification and therefore in the light of the amendment made to the Land Acquisition act, the acquisition is void. It is also contended that the report of the Asst. Commissioner, Land Acquisition Officer is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court. It is further contended that the acquiring body was not heard. The last contention, it is submitted by the counsel, refers to the Education department not being heard as the purpose of acquisition was the establishment of the school. ( 5 ) LEARNED Govt. Advocate has produced the records. I have perused the same. It is further contended that the acquiring body was not heard. The last contention, it is submitted by the counsel, refers to the Education department not being heard as the purpose of acquisition was the establishment of the school. ( 5 ) LEARNED Govt. Advocate has produced the records. I have perused the same. In the previous writ petition, the petitioner enjoyed an interim stay of further proceedings. The proceedings in this Court lasted for a period of 9 months and 2 days. Respondents are entitled to exclude while computing the 3 years provided for in proviso (1) to sub-section (1) of Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with explanation-1 to the said subsection. According to the petitioner, the delay is by 8 months and 12 days beyond the period of 3 years from the date of the preliminary notification. But if 9 months and 23 days are excluded, then the Notification issued under Sec. 6 (1) would be a valid Notification. Therefore, the first of the grounds urged must necessarily be rejected. ( 6 ) SECOND ground urged that the asst. Commissioner did not consider the availability of alternative land by this court does not appear to be well founded in the light of the order made in the earlier writ petition. This Court did no more than observe that the specific objection raised by the petitioner regarding the suitability of the land be considered. It did not direct that 1he availability of the alternative site should be examined by the asst. Commissioner. ( 7 ) ON seeing the records pertaining to the lands, it is seen that the spot inspection was made by the Asst. Commissioner in the presence of the parties, namely the representative of the acquiring department as well as the petitioner's counsel. It is only thereafter that the asst. Commissioner made up his mind that the land was to be acquired for the purpose notified earlier. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, the suitability of the land is something which normally acquiring Department or Authority determines and it will not be open to the Land acquisition Officer to adjudicate on the suitability of the land decided by the acquiring authority or the Department. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, the suitability of the land is something which normally acquiring Department or Authority determines and it will not be open to the Land acquisition Officer to adjudicate on the suitability of the land decided by the acquiring authority or the Department. If the Village Panchayat is satisfied that this land is suitable for the purpose of establishing a school, then that should be more than conclusive of the suitability of the lands for the purpose for which it was acquired. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the second ground urged in support of quashing the notifications in question. ( 9 ) THE last ground urged should not detain me any longer. It was contended that the acquiring Department namely the education Department was not heard as required by Rule-5 of the Karnataka Land acquisition Rules. It is seen from the records that the authority which entered into an agreement with the Government for the purpose of acquiring the land, was the Village Panchayat concerned and not the Education Department. Education department did no more than indicate to the Village Panchayat that a school would not be sanctioned to the village unless suitable site was found. That does not make the Education Department the acquiring authority. It was the Village panchayat which was required to establish a school and therefore it requested the government for the land to be acquired. ( 10 ) THERE is no dispute, as is apparent from the records, that the Village panchayat has been heard in the proceedings under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Land acquisition Rules. Therefore, the third ground also must fail. ( 11 ) FOR the above reasons, this petition is liable to be rejected and it is so rejected. Rule is discharged. --- *** --- .