(Rpting with corrected slug)

Justice Gowda said, "In view of the foregoing reasons, byno stretch of imagination can such an acquisition of lands beheld to be one for ‘public purpose’ and not for a company. Ifthe acquisition of lands in the instant case does not amountto one for the company, I do not know what would." However, Justice Mishra said, "The fact that applicationwas filed by TML indicating its willingness for setting up theindustry would not also make it an acquisition for a companybut how the state has dealt with the same, would be thedecisive factor." "Acquisition of land for a company or forindustrialisation, if it is for public purpose, would becovered under section 3(f) as amended and when corporation isthe acquiring authority and amount of compensation is borne byit in entirety and land has been ultimately leased out to TMLfor its project by it the acquisition would remain for apublic purpose under section 3(f) attracting Part II of theAct," he said. "The procedure adopted under Part II cannot be said to beimpermissible. It cannot be said to be acquisition under guiseof public purpose so as to violate the intendment of exclusionof the company from section 3(f) as amended," Justice Mishrasaid while noting that WBIDC had paid the entire compensation. Referring to the Act, Justice Mishra also said that therecan be an acquisition for public purpose and "ultimately landmay go on lease or other mode of transfer to a company and incase the compensation is paid out of public revenue, it wouldbe an acquisition for a public purpose under Part II and incase compensation is borne as per the agreement provided insection 41, it would be an acquisition under Part VII of theAct." PTI SJK ABA MNL RKSARC