ORDER
K. Sreedharan, J.
1. Petitioners challenge the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for acquisition of properties mentioned in Ext. P. 1 notification for expansion of Travancore Electro Chemicals Industries Limited, Chingavanam. The attack is on two counts. First one is that declaration issued Under Section 6 of the Act was after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of Ext. P1 notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act and hence it is invalid. The second ground is that the acquisition for expansion of the existing unit of a company is hit by Section 44-B of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. I shall proceed to deal with these contentions in detail.
2. Ext. P1 notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in the Gazette dt. 17-2-1987. It was published in Deepika daily on 17-2-1987 and in Malayala Manorama daily on 21-2-1987. Section 6 declaration was issued on 7-8-1988. Second proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act states that no notification Under Section 6 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is argued that declaration Under Section 6 of the Act should have been published on or before 20-2-1988, within one year of the date of publication in the Malayala Manorama daily. Since the declaration was issued after the period of one year, it is stated that the declaration is invalid and the entire proceedings must be quashed.
3. Publication of a preliminary notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act is the first step to be taken for acquisition of any land under the Act. Only after that publication can any officer of the State enter upon the land for measuring the property for fixing boundaries or for doing other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adaptable for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired etc. The power of the officers of the Government to enter upon the land and interfere with the possession of the owner can be exercised only after that publication. Thus, the object of the notification can be taken as one to give a clear notice to the owner of the proposed acquisition and proposed entry of the officers into the land. Section 4(1) of the Act makes the notification mandatory. The notification should be effected by three modes. It must be published in the Official Gazette. It should also be published in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality. At least one among the two newspapers must be in the regional language. Over and above these two modes of publication, the Collector should cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. Giving of public notice is mandatory. Thus, it is clear that the notification issued Under Section 4(1) of the Act without complying with the issue of public notice would invalidate the entire acquisition proceedings.
4. Section 4(1) of the Act does not limit the public notice to two modes, viz., publication in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers. It insists on a third mode of notifying the substance of the notification in the locality. When the Act provides for three modes of publication each of them should be treated as publication under that section. The last date of such publication and the date of giving public notice should be taken as the date of publication of the notification. Section 4(1) does not prescribe any mode for giving public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places. Nor does it fix any time limit within which public notice is to be given after the publication in the Official Gazette or in newspapers. Last part of Section 4(1) makes it abundantly clear that the date of giving of public notice contemplated therein has to be treated as the date of publication of the notification. In the light of that provision, the period of one year fixed for making declaration Under Section 6(1) is to be counted from the last of the dates of publication of the notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act.
5. As stated earlier, the notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette dt. 17-2-87. It was published in Deepika daily on the same date itself. The publication in Malayala Manorama daily was on 21-2-1987. The petitioner has not stated anything regarding the date of public notice of the substance of the notification given in the locality. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it is averred that public notice Under Section 4(1) was given on 27-3-1987. In the reply affidavit the petitioners disputed the factum of publication of the public notice in the locality. The learned Government Pleader made available to court the entire file relating to the acquisition of the land involved in this case. The file shows that the notices were published at the Village Office and at important places in the locality. Pages 51 and 53 are copies of the notice published in the notice board of the Village Office and in important places in the locality respectively. They further go to show that those notices were published on 27-3-1987. For a proper understanding of that notice, I read the same :
“Notice is hereby given that the land specified in the appended Schedule and situated in the Village of Nattakom in the taluk of Kottayam in the District of Kottayam is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose, to wit, for the Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd., Chingavanam, in accordance with the notification published under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at page 463 of Part III of Kerala Gazette dt. 17-2-1987. All persons interested in the said land are accordingly required to lodge before the Revenue Divisional Officer at Kottayam within 30 days from the date of publication of the above notification a statement in writing of their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition of the said land. Any objection statement which is received after the due date or which does not clearly explain as to how the objector is interested in the land is liable to be summarily rejected.”
This notice, no doubt is the substance of Ext. P1 notification published in the Gazette. It satisfies the third mode of publication prescribed by Section 4(1) of the Act. That public notice was published in the notice board of the Village Office and in important places in the locality on 27-3-1987. One copy of this notice was published in the notice board of the Taluk Office on 12-3-1987. For fixing the period of one year the last date of publication of the public notice is to be reckoned. The last date in the instant case being 27-3-1987, the declaration Under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been published on or before 26-3-1988. The date of publication of Section 6 declaration in this case is 7-3-1988. It is well within one year of the notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act. It, therefore, follows that the first contention raised by the petitioners is devoid of any substance and it has to fail.
6. The 2nd contention raised by the petitioners is that the additional 4th respondent company being not a Government company, the land notified cannot be acquired for any purpose other than that coming within Section 40(1)(a) of the Act. According to the petitioners, Section 44-B is an absolute bar to the acquisition of land for a company for any other purpose. Section 44B of the Act provides that no land shall be acquired for any purpose other than one mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 for a private company which is not a Government company. Section 40(1)(a) allows the acquisition of land for erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the company or for the provision of amenities directly connected with it. According to counsel, the acquisition of land under the Act for a company should be limited to the said purpose and not to anything else. The proceedings under the Act can be resorted to for acquisition of land for other purposes in respect of a company only if the company happens to be a Government Company. The present acquisition is not for erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the 4th respondent-company or for the provision of amenities directly connected with it. The additional 4th respondent is not a Government Company. So the acquisition proceedings are not sanctioned by the Act. On this ground, it is submitted that the entire proceedings must be quashed.
7. Part VII of the Act deals with the acquisition of land for companies. The Government should be satisfied regarding the existence of certain conditions mentioned in various sub-clauses of Section 40(1) of the Act for acquiring land under the Act. If the Government are satisfied that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for erection of dwelling houses for the workmen employed by a company or for provision of amenities directly connected with it, such acquisition is permitted by invoking the provisions of the Act. Similarly if after enquiry, the Government are satisfied that the acquisition is needed for construction of some building or work for a company, which is engaged in any industry or work which is for a public purpose than also the provisions of the Act can be pressed into service for acquiring land. Lastly, if the Government are satisfied that the acquisition is needed for the construction of some work which is likely to prove useful to the public, then also, the provisions of the Act can be invoked. In the case of a private company, a further restriction on the acquisition of the land is made in Section 44-B of the Act. That is, a private company can get the land acquired under this Act only for the purpose of erection of dwelling houses for its workmen or for provision of amenities directly connected with it. Accordingly to the petitioners, this limitation is applicable to all companies other than Government Companies. In other words, the acquisition for other purpose mentioned earlier for a company can be resorted to only if the company happens to be a Government Company. This interpretation will be violating the provisions of Section 40(1) of the Act, Sub-clauses (aa) and (b) of Clause (1) of Section 40 will become redundant if the above interpretation is given effect to. Explanation to Section 44-B throws light on this aspect, ‘private company’ and ‘Government company’ mentioned in that section should have meanings respectively assigned to them in the Companies Act. ‘Private Company’ is defined in Section 3(iii) of the Companies Act in the following terms :
“private company” means a company which, by its articles,–
(a) restricts the right to transfer its shares, if any;
(b) limits the number of its members to fifty not including-
(i) persons who are in the employment of the company, and
(ii) persons who, having been formerly in the employment of the company, were members of the company while in that employment and have continued to be members after the employment ceased; and
(c) prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares in, or debentures of, the company :
Provided that where two or more persons hold one or more shares in a company jointly, they shall, for the purpose of this definition, be treated as a single member”.
Section 617 of the Companies Act defines ‘Government Company’ as :
“For the purpose of (this Act) Government company means any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the (paid up share capital) is held by the Central Government, or by any State Government or Governments, or partly by the Central government and partly by one or more State Governments (and includes a company which is a subsidiary of a Government Company as thus defined).”
Additional 4th respondent is neither a ‘Private Company’ nor a ‘Government Company’. It is a ‘Public Company’. The Government have shares in it. The Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and the Life Insurance Corporation of India are also share-holders of the company. For such companies acquisition under the Act can be resorted to for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 40(1) of the Act. The proposed acquisition is needed to put up some buildings and other work for the company which is engaged in industrial activities. Acquisition in such a case is permissible under Clause (aa) of Section 40(1) of the Act. Viewed in this manner, I do not find any vice in the proceedings initiated under the Act for acquiring the land covered by Section 6 declaration.
8. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
