Case: State of Punjab and Others Vs. Raja Ram and Others

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 Rams 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. Act"). The notification related to 15 different plots of land including the land of the present acquisition proceedings. The material portion of the notification is as follows:"Whereas it appears to the President of India that the land is likely to be needed by Government, at public expense, for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of godowns for storage ofs at Morinda, it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described below is likely to be required for the above purpose...........................""Further in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Act, the President of India is pleased to direct that the action under Section 17 shall be taken in this case on the grounds of urgency and provisions of Section 5 (A) shall not apply in regard to thisn the same day another notification under Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the L.A. Act was issued. The material portion of this notification runs thus:"Whereas the President of India is satisfied that the land specified below is needed by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of godowns for storage of food grains at Morinda, it is hereby declared that the land described in the specification below is required for the aforesaid purpose. This declaration is made under the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894................"3. Against the aforesaid notification a writ petition was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. The writ petition was heard by a sing le Judge of the High Court and was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, found that the provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act relating to the acquisition of land for Companies were not applicable to the present case as the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) was a department of Government and not a Company within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the L.A. Act although, undoubtedly, according to the learned Judge, there was no manner of doubt about the fact that the land in dispute was in fact being acquired for the Corporation and that the purpose for which the land had been acquired was a public purpose4. Against the aforesaid Order of the learned Single Judge a Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P .A. No. 1283 of 1969, was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 before the Division Bench, that allowed the appeal and quashed the land acquisition proceedings as stated earlier.

Reasoning:
n (2) which we need hardly say, is an Indian law, clothes the Corporation with the attributes of a company. It cannot, therefore, be contended with any plausibility that the Corporation is not a Company within the meaning of the definition of that term appearing in clause (e) of section 3 of the L.A. ActWe are unable to accept this submission also. 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 acquiring, holding and disposing of property and having the power to contract. It may also sue or be sued by its own name and the 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 (section 5 of the F.C. Act) and that 11 out of the 12 members of its Board of Directors are appointed by that Government (section 7 of the F.C. Act) but then these factors may at the most lead to the conclusion (about which we express no final opinion) that the Corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the Central Government. In this connection we may cite with advantage t he following observations of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Authority of India andA Corporation may be created in one of two ways. It may be either established by statute or incorporated under a law such asthe Companies Act, 1956 or the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Where a corporation is wholly controlled by government not only in its policy making but also in carrying out the functions entrusted to it by the law establishing it or by the Charter of its incorporation, there can be no doubt that it would be an instrumentality or agency of Government. But ordinarily where a corporation is established by statute, it is autonomous in its working subject only to a provision, often times made, that it shall be bound by any directions that may be issued from time to time by Government in respect of policy matters. So also a Corporation incorporated under law is managed by a Board of Directors or committee of management in accordance with the provisions of the statute under which it is incorporated. When does such a corporation become an instrumentality or agency of Government ? Is the holding of the entire share capital of the Corporation by Government enough or is it necessary that in addition, there should be a certain amount of direct control exercised by Government and, if so wh at should be the nature of such control? Should the functions which the Corporation is charged to carry out possess any particular characteristic or feature, or is the nature of the functions immaterial ? Now, one thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by Government it would be a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. But, as is quite often the case the Corpo ration established by statute may have no share or shareholders in which case it would be a relevant factor to consider whether the administration is in the hands of a Board of Directors appointed by Government though this conside ration also may not be determinative, because even where the directors are appointed by Government, they may be completely free from governmental control in the discharge of theirn the conclusion , however, that the Corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the Central Government does not lead to the further inference that the Corporation is a Government department. The reason is that the F.C. Act has given the Corporation an individuality apart from that of the Government. In any case the Corporation cannot be divested of its character as a Company within the meaning of the definition in clause (e) of section 3 of the L.A. Act, for it completely fulfils the requirements of that clause, as held by us above9. The Corporation being a Company, compliance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the L.A. Act had to be made in order to lawfully acquire any land for its purpose. It is not denied that such compliance is completely lacking in the present case.