Chandra Gupta Suri, J. - (1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, some owners have challenged the proceedings for the acquisition of their lands by the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended from time to time in its application to the said State. This Act would hereafter be referred to in this judgment briefly as 'the Act'.
(2.) The impugned notification (Annexure 'B/1') under Sec. 4 of the Act recites, amongst other things, that the land is likely to be needed by the Government at public expense for the public purpose of construction of godowns for the storage of foodgrains at Nabha. The impugned declaration (Annexure 'B/2') under Sec. 6 of the Act also mentions the same public purpose and source of funds. Action under Sec. 17 of the Act was taken on the grounds of urgency and provisions of Sec. 5A were dispensed with. The acquisition was described to have been made under clause (c) of sub -section (2) of Sec. 17, as inserted in the Act by a Punjab amendment. Even though the Food Corporation of India, respondent No. 2, is not mentioned in these notifications, it has been admitted in a return filed on behalf of the respondents that the acquisition had been made by respondent No. 1 for construction of godowns for storage of stocks of food -grains belonging to respondent No. 2. Even though the petitioners were shown in the revenue records as the owners, Shrimati Narinder Kaur, respondent No. 3, had been found in possession of the land. It was, however, averred by the respondents that the acquisition was being made for a public purpose at State expense and that the entire funds for the project were to be borne by the Central Government under a crash program launched by the Food Ministry through the agency of the Food Corporation of India. The department wanted to proceed with the construction work immediately in the national interest and to complete it before the Rabi harvest to avoid wastage of foodgrains for want of adequate storage facilities. It was denied that the land had been acquired for any company. The acquisition had been made under S. 17 (2) (c) and action had been taken under the emergency provisions of the Act, as amended in its application to the State of Punjab and that the President of India was fully satisfied with regard to the existence of the conditions which justified the invocation of these emergency provisions.
(3.) The following, amongst other, provisions of the Act, as amended in its application to the State of Punjab, may be kept in mind while discussing the various aspects of the controversy that has been raised in the present case: - 3. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, - (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d) XX XX XX (e) the expression "Company" means a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, or under the (English) Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, or incorporated by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or by an Indian Law; or by Royal Charter or Letters Patent; and includes a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, and a registered society within the meaning of the Co -operative Societies Act, 1912 or any other law relating to Cooperative Societies for the time being in force in any State. (ee) xx xx xx (f) xx xx xx (g) xx xx xx;