- (1.) In the instant case the land in dispute has been acquired for a Company. The grievance made in the petition is that the State Government did not make any contribution towards the cost of acquisition and for that reason it cannot be said that the acquisition is for a public purpose.
(2.) During the pendency of the petition, which was filed on November 13, 1978, the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Industries took a decision that the Government should contribute a sum of Rs. 100/- towards the cost of acquisition of land. In this behalf it has been contended by Mr. D.S. Boparai, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, that the acquisition be regarded as one for public purpose.
(3.) Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the following observations made by a Single Bench of the Madras High Court in Syed Dilawar Hussain v. Collector of Madras, 1955 AIR(Mad) 610 :- "But as I read the proviso to Section 6(1), there must be some unmistakable manifestation of the intention of the Government to pay at least a part of the compensation from out of the public revenue and that manifestation must be antecedent to the publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In this case there is nothing to show that Government applied its mind at all to the fulfilment of this statutory obligation imposed upon it by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act.";