Case: Ramji Veerji Patel &amp; Others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer &amp; Others

On the requisition of Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam (for short, `the Corporation) for making available land for expansion of their depot, particularly for a workshop, at Chidambaram, the State Government of Tamil Nadu (for short, `the Government) issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act) which was published in the Gazette on March 3, 1989 notifying for general information that the land mentioned therein, namely, land admeasuring 1.45 acres comprised in T.S. No. 14, classified as government wet land in Chidambaram Municipal Town, South Arcot District was needed for the above public purpose. The notification under Section 4(1) was also published in the two newspapers on November 18, 1988 and in the locality on March 27, 1989. The appellants filed objections to the acquisition before the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, `RDO), Chidambaram. The diverse objections to the acquisition were raised; one of such objections being that the other lands behind the existing depot of the Corporation were available and could be used for the purpose for which their land was sought to be acquired. They stated that their family was dependant upon the income from the saw mill existing on the land and by compulsory acquisition of their land, they would be deprived of the sole means of livelihood.3. The RDO considered the objections put forth on behalf of the appellants and submitted his report to the Government on conclusion of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.4. It appears that when the report of the RDO was under consideration, the appellants sent a representation to the Government bringing to its notice that the land belonging to Tamil Nadu Evengelical Lutheran Church (`TELC) just behind the existing depot has been advertised for sale and, therefore, instead of resorting to the compulsory acquisition of the appellants land, the land of TELC may be acquired.5. The Government was not persuaded by the appellants objections and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued which was published in the Gazette on March 21, 1990. The publication of the Section 6 declaration was made by other modes as well.6. The appellants challenged the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the writ petition before the Madras High Court. In opposition to the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by his order dated November 18, 1998.7. Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellants preferred intra-court appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order on July 25, 2001.

Court's reasoning:
That Corporation and the TNSTC fall within the definition of Section 3(cc) is not in dispute. Both may not have been divested of their character as a government company but sub-clause (i) of Section 3(e) excludes a government company from the definition of company. Part VII (Sections 38 to 44B) of the Act provides for acquisition of land for companies. In view of the definition of the `company in Section 3(e) which excludes government company, the Corporation or for that matter its successor TNSTC does not fall within the definition of the `company and, therefore, is not covered by Part VII of the Act at all.28. In Raja Ram4, the definition of `company in Section 3 (e) of the Act prior to its substitution fell for consideration. The definition of `company under consideration read as followsexpression "company" means a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1890 or under the (English) Companies Acts, 1862 to 1882 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 Societies Registration Act, 1860, an a registered society within the meaning of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, or any other law relating to cooperative societies for the time being in force in any State.It was in the context of the above definition that this Court held in Raj Ram4 that the Food Corporation of India was not divested of its character as a company within the meaning of definition of clause (e) of Section 3 of the Act. As noticed above, the definition of `company has undergone complete change and the government company has been expressly excluded from the expression `company for the purposes of the Act.