Judgment :- Shorn of unnecessary factual details which this Court cannot obviously consider in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner. A tenant is entitled to raise any objection with regard to the option exercised by She landlord under S.49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In the alternative can it he contended that the tenant who is in actual possession of the building alone is entitled to have the final word about it. Next question is whether in a case where S.49(1) of the Act is invoked is it necessary to have fresh notification and consequential proceedings under the Act? 2. S.49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act') states that the provisions of the Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring a part only of any house. manufactory or other building. if the owner desires that the whole of such house. manufactory or building shall be so acquired. The first proviso enables the owner to withdraw or modify his expressed desire at any time before the Collector has made his award under S.1. Of course. that should be done by a notice in writing. S.49(1) specifically shows that it is only the owner of the building who alone is given the option to have the whole building being acquired if the acquisition proceedings take in only a portion of it. 3. Different considerations arise under S.49(2). In the case of any claim under S.23(1). thirch. by a person interested it is open to the Government at any time before the Collector has made his award. if it is of opinion that the claim is unreasonable or excessive to order the acquisition of the whole of the land of which the land first sought to be acquired forms a part. Certainly the option is with the Government. under S.23 (t) thirch. the Court has to take into consideration the damage. if any. sustained by the. person interested. at the time of the Collector taking possession of the land. by reason of severing of such land from his other land. If the Government is of opinion that the claim made by the interested person is unreasonable or excessive. it can definitely order acquisition of the whole land. if any. sustained by the. person interested. at the time of the Collector taking possession of the land. by reason of severing of such land from his other land. If the Government is of opinion that the claim made by the interested person is unreasonable or excessive. it can definitely order acquisition of the whole land. S.49(3) makes the position clear that in such a situation no fresh declaration or other proceedings under Ss.6 to 10 is necessary. The essential difference between S.49(1) and S.49(2) is that in the former case where acquisition of a portion of house. manufactory or building becomes necessary the owner is given the option whereas in the latter case the option is with Government to acquire the severed portion of land also. 4. From a reading of S.49(1). it is apparent that it is only the owner who can desire the whole of the house. manufactory or building to be acquired. The privilege to withdraw or modify the desire is also given to the owner. The word 'owner' is not defined under the Act. The expression 'person interested' is defined in S.3(b). The expression 'person interested' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. A person is deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. As S.49(1) is categorical that only the owner can exercise the option a tenant of a building cannot advance a diametrically opposite contention. Definitely he has no say in the matter. 5. A perusal of Ext. B-2 rent deed shows that the petitioner is only a tenant of the building and that he has no right in the land appurtenant to it. It further shows that he is not allowed to construct any structure in the properly or do anything against the interests of the landlord. Contention of the petitioner that it is not necessary to acquire the entire building and that it would be possible for him to carry on his activities in the unacquired portion of the building and so the landlord is not justified in giving an option under S.49(1) is devoid of any merit as legally he cannot raise such a contention. 6. 6. The object of S.49(1) is to enable the owner to gel compensation for the entire building when he is faced with a difficult situation of a portion of the building or manufactory or house is acquired. S.49(2) gives the option to the Government only when the claim under Clause 3 of S.23(1) is found to be excessive. It is also pertinent to note that in S.49(1) the phraseology used is 'owner' whereas under other Sections a 'person interested' is also given the right to agitate his contentions. This would also show that the Legislature in its wisdom gave the right of option under S.49(1) only to the owner and not to the tenant. When the Act contains several provisions whereby a 'person interested' can claim compensation it can be easily discerned that the special remedy provided under S.49(1) cannot be invoked by any 'person interested' but only by the owner. In a case were the owner of the building found it necessary to exercise option under S.49(1) and the land acquisition officer found the option worthy of acceptance. a third person cannot object to it. 7. Contention of the petitioner that it is not one building that is sought to be acquired also is not tenable in view of the commission report in the case. In para 3 of the commission report it is staled that whole building is with tiled roof except a small portion roofed with corrugated sheets. Seventh respondent who valued the building. in his courser-affidavit stated that llic roofs of the structure are interconnected and the portion of the structure falling under the notified are: is part of a single large structure. Moreover it bears only one Panchayat number. As the acquisition proceeding relates only to a portion of the building the option exercised by the owner to acquire the remaining portion of the building was rightly accepted by the respondents. 8. Another contention of the petitioner is that at any rate the portion of the building in the unacquired portion of the land cannot be acquired without fresh notification under the Act. The above contention is also not enable. as S.49(1) does not envisage such a procedure. S.49(1) has been enacted to obviate the difficulties and inconveniences encountered by the owner of a building. house. or manufactory when a portion of the same alone is sought to be acquired. The above contention is also not enable. as S.49(1) does not envisage such a procedure. S.49(1) has been enacted to obviate the difficulties and inconveniences encountered by the owner of a building. house. or manufactory when a portion of the same alone is sought to be acquired. Due to various reasons of his own owner of a building may not like to retain partly demolished building. To meet such a situation the owner is given the option under S.49(1). Where S.49(2) applies it is made clear that no fresh declaration or other proceedings under Ss.6 to 10 is necessary. Even in a case where land is acquired and when a 'person interested'. on account of severing of the land makes a claim under S.23(1) thirch. and Government decided to acquire the remaining portion of land also no fresh declaration is called for. That being the position. in a case where owner exercises option to acquires the whole building it cannot at all be held that fresh declaration becomes necessary. 9. It is next contended by the petitioner luat as an occupant of the building he is entitled to receive notice under S.9(3) and as it was not given the whole proceedings are vitiated. It cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings. Exts. P-5 and P-8 petitions filed by the petitioner show that he is really a ware of the proceedings. Contention of the petitioner that there was no notification is disputed by the Government Pleader. As due publication was made regarding the acquisition of the land in two local newspapers and in the official gazette the above contention is not tenable. 10. Several allegations are made against the 7th respondent. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent stated that the allegations are made without any basis. He denied every allegation. Report by the Chief Technical Examiner disproves the allegations made by the petitioner against the 7th respondent. 11. Contention that 15th respondent was not competent to exercise option under S.49(1) as at best he is only a co-owner is equally without merit as the additional respondents 20 to 23 have not challenged his action so far. When the owners of the property do not have a case against 15th respondent's action petitioner cannot espouse their cause. For the reasons stated above the Original Petition is dismissed.