The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition for a public purpose with contribution from the public revenue did not require compliance with the mandatory requirements of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Additionally, the explanation to Section 11-A of the Act applied to the case, and the acquisition proceedings were not vitiated.

( 1 ) THE short facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: - the property in question which is a building, is sought to be acquired for public purpose, to wit, for construction of hmt Ltd. Corporate head office administrative building and multi storeyed building for administrative office for the vysya bank Ltd. The acquisition is under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). Preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the act was issued on 19-6-1982 and was published in Karnataka gazette on 1-7-1982. During the statutory enquiry under Section 5-a, the objection was that the khatedar and' anubhavdar as notified in Section 4 (1) notification as v. t. padmanabhan mudaliar had died on 22-7-1980, and therefore the said notification was bad. This objection was overruled. Equally the other objection opposing the acquisition was also overruled. Thereafter the declaration under Section 6 (1) of the act was made on 19-2-1983 and was published in the gazette on 24-2-1983. The special land acquisition officer, thereafter, issued notice to the petitioners for filing the statement of claim, on 14-3-19s3. Without prejudice to the petitioner's rights a common statement of claim was filed on 31-3-1983. When the claim statement of the petitioners was pending consideration, the owner of the adjoining premises bearing No. 21, m. g. road, Bangalore, preferred writ petition No. 8356/1983 challenging both the preliminary and final notifications dated 19-6-1982 and 19-2-1983 respectively. In that writ petition, Rule nisi was issued and a stay was granted on 22-4-1983. The petitioners were under the bona fide impression that in view of the Rule nisi and the stay Order, further acquisition proceedings could not be gone into. While the matter stood thus, the special l. a. o. issued notice on 20-7-1983 to the petitioners, convening a meeting on 22-7-1983. During that meeting, the l. a. o. was apprised thai having regard to the pendency of W. P. No. 8356/1983 the further proceedings should not lake place; all the more so because, W. P. Nos. 8430 to 8434/1983 have come to be filed by the petitioners themselves challenging the acquisition of the front portion of no, 22, m. g. road, under the urban land (ceiling and regulations) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ceiling act), which had resulted in the issue of Rule nisi and interim stay, and even from this point of view the acquisition proceedings should not be continued. Though for some time no action was taken, the third respondent-the special l. a. o.- called upon respondents 4 and 5 to deposit funds with him for finalisation of acquisition proceedings. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition No. 22444/1983 has come to be preferred as this would be detrimental to the interests of the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE grounds urged in support of this writpetition are: the acquisition is for a company and therefore the mandatory requirements of part-vii of the act and the Provisions of the land acquisition (companies) rules, 1973, ought to have been followed. In the absence of that, the impugned notifications are bad in law. Section 39 of the act lays down that the Provisions of sections 6 to 37 shall not be put in force to acquire land for companies unless the company executes an agreement as required to in the subsequent section. Before such an agreement is entered into, the government must give its previous consent for acquisition. Earlier to giving that consent an enquiry must be held under Section 40, and thereafter the agreement must be entered into. That agreement requires to be published under Section 42. To the best of the information of the petitioners, no such enquiry was held, nor has there been any publication of the agreement in the gazette. Therefore, for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of sections 40 and 42 of the Act, the acquisition is vitiated and invalid in law. Under rule-4 of the aforementioned ru