LexSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus RAJA RAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
712
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
v.
RAJA RAM & ORS.
January 29, 1981
[A. D. KOSHAL AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.]
Land Acqui.sition Act, 1894, .51ectio11 3(e) read with section 4-U'hether the
Food
l~orporarion, creaf(d by section 3 of the Food Corporation At!, 1964,
is a co111pa11y within the 111eaning of section 3(e) of the Land A('qtd1ition Act.
l)isn1issing the State appeal on certificate, the Court
I~ELD : ( 1) The acquisition of land for the Food Corporation of
India
is not in nccordance \Vith law for the reason that compliance with the pro--
visions of Chapter VII of
the Land Acquisition Act had not heen made.
[717A-B]
(2) The Food Corporation of lndia is a Compa11y
within
the
meaning
of the
term appearing
in clause ( e) of section 3 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
Section 3 (e) mentions in unrnistakable terms that a company
incorporated by an Indian law would be a "Company" for the purposes of
lhe Land Acquisition
Act.
The Corporation
wias
adn1ittedly
creat'ed
by
sc~ction 3 of the Food Corporation Act. 1964. Sub-section (2) of section 3 of
the Food Corporation Act, 1964 is an Indian Law and clothes the Corporation
with the attribute~ of a<- compan)'.
[7l 5A-E.]
(3) A Government department has to be an. organisation
which
is
not
only completely controlled and financed by the Government but has also no
identity of its own. The money earned by such a department goes
to the
exchequer of the Government and losses incurred by the department are losses
of the Government. The Corporation, on the other hand, is an autonomous
body capable of ocquiring, holding and disposing of properly and having tho
power to contract. It n1ay also sue or be sued by its own
nan1e and tho
Government does not figure in any litigation to which it is a party. It is true
that its original share capital is provided by the Central Government and thati
11 out of the 12 members of its Board of Directors are appointed by the
Central Government but then these factors may at the most lead to the conclu~
sion that the Corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the
Central
Government. [715E-H]
Even the conclusion, ho\\1ever, that the Corporation is an agency or instru·
mentality of the Central Government does not lead to the further inference that
rhe Corporation is a Government department. The reason is that the Food
O:Jrporation Act has given the Corporation an individuality apart from that
of the Government. In any case the Corpor::ition cannot be divested
Qlf its
character as a ''Company" within the meaning of the definition in clause, (e)
of section 3 of the La-nd Acquisition Act, for it completely fulfils the require~
ments of that clause.
[716G-H, 717A-B]
Raniana Daynrani Shetty v. The International Authority of India and Ors ..
[1969] 3 SCR 1014, applied.
)
)
PUNJAB v. RAJA RAM (Baharul Islam, J.)
713
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2063 of 1970.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26-2-1970 of Punjab and
Haryana l'Iigh Court in L.P.A. No. 283/69.
0. P. Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the Appellant.
A
S. K. Mehra, P. N. Puri, E. "M'. S. Anam and M. K. Dua for Res-
B
pondents Nos. 1-3.
-.
K. J. John for Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BAHARUL ISLAM, J.-This appeal by the State of Punjab and two
others, namely, the Collector, Rupar District and the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Civil-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rupar, is on a certi-
ficate granted by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in respect of its judgment in a Letters Patent Appeal holding
the acquisition of the land in question to be bad in law on the grounds
that the Food Corporation of India for which the Land in question
was sought to be acquired was not a "Company" within the meaning
of section 3 ( e) of the Land Acquisition Act that the land had also
not been acquiTed for a public purpose and that the State could
acquire the land under that Act only for a public purpose or for the
purpose of a Company.
2. The material facts of the case may be stated thus : Nine biswas
of the disputed land situated within the municipal area of Morinda in
the District of Rupar was owned by respondent No. 1, Raja Ram,
Respondents No. 2 and 3. are Raja Ram's sons. The State of Punjab
issued a notification dated December 17, 1968 under section 4 read
with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894
(hereinafter
called "the L.A. AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.