SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter was kept for vacating ad interim relief granted by this Court, but at the request of the learned Advocate of the parties, particularly at the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it was finally heard as he submitted that by vacating ad interim relief the purpose of filing this petition would be frustrated. In paragraph 15 of the petition the petitioners have prayed as under :"15 (A) A writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 20/05/1989 at Annexure b collectively and the notification dated 18-7-1989 at Annexure c. (B) A writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued declaring the action of the second respondent to take possession of the lands in question belonging to the petitioners and the persons whose names are stated in Annexure a without any competence and jurisdiction. " ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that in the purported exercise of the power under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the respondents issued Notifications dated 26/04/1989 which are annexed with the petition as Annexure b to the petition collectively by which different lands belonging to the petitioners and other persons were sought to be acquired for " construction of Depot for storage and distribution of petroleum products of 1. 0. C. ". Thereafter the respondents issued notification under Sec. 6 dated 18/07/1989 which is produced at Annexure c to the petition. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid notifications on the following grounds :" (1) The impugned notifications under Sees. 4 and 6 are illegal as they are issued without following mandatory procedure prescribed under Sec. 4 of the Act as Sec. 4 notification is not published in daily newspapers and the substance of such notification is not published at the site. (2) In notification issued under Sec. 6 (Annexure c) some lands for which no notification under Sec. 4 of the Act is issued are sought to be acquired. (3) The lands are not sought to be acquired for the public purpose but they are sought to be acquired for a Company without following the prescribed under chapter VII of the Act. (3) The lands are not sought to be acquired for the public purpose but they are sought to be acquired for a Company without following the prescribed under chapter VII of the Act. " ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing of this matter, as no affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondent State Government, Mr. Mangukia, learned assistant Government, Pleader, has produced for our perusal the entire record of the land acquisition proceedings. ( 4 ) AT this stage it should be noted that the petitioners have not made any grievance with regard to the publication of the notification under Sec. 6 of the Act. Their grievance is only with regard to notifications issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. From the original record Mr. Mangukia, learned assistant Government Pleader, has pointed out that substance of Sec. 4 notification was published at the site on 1/06/1989. The necessary panchnama was also drawn. It was published at the office of the Taluka panchayat and in the newspapers, viz. , "sandesh" and "jansatta". He has also produced on record the Extraordinary Gazette dated 26/04/1989 whereby three notifications under Sec. 4 of the Act dated 26/04/1989 are published. Their Nos. are : AM/89/ 189/m/lme/1689/1395/gh, AM/89/ 189/m/lme/1689/1396/gh and AM/89/ 189/m/lme/1689/1397/gh. He has also produced on record the copies of the three notifications dated 1 8/07/1989 issued under Sec. 6 of the Act and published in the extraordinary Gazette dated 18/07/1989. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Manager (Engineering) of respondent No. 3 it has been stated that the said notifications were also published in following three newspapers : 1. "sambhav" dated 23rd July, 1989. 2. "gandhinagar Samachar" dated 29/07/1989. 3. "gujarat Samachar" dated 29/07/1989. These facts are not disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts, in our view the second contention which is raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that notification under Sec. 6 is issued for the lands for which no notification under Sec. 4 of the Act is issued, is misleading and incorrect. After verification of the aforesaid three notifications, learned Advocate for the petitioners was hot in a position to substantiate his contention. It is clear that three different notifications were issued under Sec. 4 and corresponding three different notifications are issued under Sec. 6 for acquisition of different Survey Nos. as mentioned therein. After verification of the aforesaid three notifications, learned Advocate for the petitioners was hot in a position to substantiate his contention. It is clear that three different notifications were issued under Sec. 4 and corresponding three different notifications are issued under Sec. 6 for acquisition of different Survey Nos. as mentioned therein. The petitioners have produced on record only two notifications under Sec. 4 and one notification under Sec. 6 and by referring to the said notification they have raised the aforesaid contention. Hence the aforesaid contention requires to be rejected as it is without any substance. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the first contention also, it should be noted that substance of Sec. 4 notification was published at the site on 1/06/1989 as per the original record. The necessary Panchnama is also drawn. It was also published at the office of the Taluka Panchayat and in newspapers viz. "sandesh" and "jansatta". After considering the said record, Mr. Vakharia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners was not in a position to point out how the respondents have not complied with the provisions of sec. 4 of the Act. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the land was sought to be acquired for Indian Oil Corporation, i. e. , respondent No. 3 which is a Company without following the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII of the Act and, therefore, it is illegal. In our view, this submission is also without any substance because the land is acquired for public purpose, viz. , "for construction of Depot, for storage and distribution of Petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation". This aspect is specifically mentioned in Schedule II Sec. 4 notification. Section 3 (f) of the Act gives meaning to the expression "public purpose". It inter alia includes "the provision of land for a Corporation owned or controlled by the State" but it does not include acquisition of land for Companies. The expression company" is also given meaning as per clause (e) of Sec. 3 which inter alia provides that "company" means a Company as defined in Sec. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government Company referred to in clause (cc ). The expression company" is also given meaning as per clause (e) of Sec. 3 which inter alia provides that "company" means a Company as defined in Sec. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government Company referred to in clause (cc ). Clause (cc) of Sec. 3 reads as under :"3 (CC) the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the State "means any body Corporate established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, and includes company as defined in Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, being a society established or administered by government and a Co-operative Society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State, being a co-operative society in which not less than fifty-one per centum 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,"in view of the aforesaid definition of the expression "public purpose" and the meaning given to the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the State" if the lands are acquired for the Corporation owned or controlled by the State even though it is a Company, it would be acquisition for the public purpose. Once the lands are acquired for public purpose, then there is no question of following the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII of the Act. ( 8 ) IT should be noted that Sec. 617 of the Companies Act defines "government Company". It provides that 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 defined. At the time of arguments, Mr. Vakharia raised a contention that there is nothing on record to show that respondent no. 3-Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a Government Company. For this submission it is required to be stated that the petitioner has not raised any such contention in the petition. At the time of arguments, Mr. Vakharia raised a contention that there is nothing on record to show that respondent no. 3-Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a Government Company. For this submission it is required to be stated that the petitioner has not raised any such contention in the petition. He has raised this contention for the first time at the time of hearing of this petition only when it was pointed out that by the notification issued under Sec. 4 land was sought to be acquired for the public purpose as mentioned therein. However, to complete the record we have permitted respondent No. 3 to file a short affidavit whether the indian Oil Corporation Limited is a Company within the meaning of Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 even though it is a known fact that it is a Government Company. In an additional affidavit filed to-day, it has been stated that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a Government Company within the meaning of Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and 90% of its shares are held by the Central Government and 10% by Government of gujarat. On this affidavit learned Advocate for the petitioners had noted an objection stating that if it is permitted to be taken on record, petitioner be granted 15 days time to file rejoinder. We have rejected that request on the ground that if the fact stated in this affidavit is found to be incorrect at any point of time, we would review the order and also because the learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 vehemently submitted that by continuing ad-interim relief respondent No. 3 suffers serious loss as the entire project is held up. ( 9 ) FURTHER, it should be mentioned that in the notification issued under sec. 4 it has been specifically stated that the land is needed "for a public purpose, viz. , for construction of Depot for Storage and Distribu-tion of petroleum Products of I. O. C. "the said notification nowhere mentions that it was required for a company. By Amending Act 68 of 1984 Sec. 4 is amended and after the words "for any public purpose" the words "or for a company" are added. Further, Chapter VII is also suitably amended. By Amending Act 68 of 1984 Sec. 4 is amended and after the words "for any public purpose" the words "or for a company" are added. Further, Chapter VII is also suitably amended. Section 38 is deleted by which the appropriate Government was authorised to empower any officer of any company desiring to acquire land for its purposes to exercise the powers conferred by Sec. 4. Other sections are also suitably amended. Therefore, from the very inception the State Government exercised power under Sec. 4 of the act for acquiring land for public purpose only and not for a company. As per earlier affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 it has been pointed out that the lands are urgently required for the Kandla-Bhatinda Pipeline Project which has been finally approved by the Government of India in August 1990 and which is required to be completed within a period of 33 months; it is a very important Pipelines Project aided by World Bank and is planned to carry 6 Metric tons of vital Petroleum products per year from Kandia to bhatinda in the North-West feeding through tap off terminals in Gujarat and rajasthan and for this purpose Depot at Siddhpur Station is required to be erected. In paragraph 11 it has been pointed out as under :"i submit that if the Siddhpur lands are not acquired and the pipeline is not commissioned in time, then: a. An investment of the order of several hundred Crores of Rupees on the pipeline will idle and to that extent national resources are wasted. B. The transport capacity to move the vital Petroleum products from Kandla upto North-West, which should be going up with the expected commissioning of the pipeline in 33 months time from August 1990, will not be available to the country, resulting in additional load on rail, transport etc. The alternate means of transport may not have adequate capacity to meet this requirement resulting in possible shortage of vital Petroleum products in the areas served by this pipeline, namely Gujarat, Rajasthan and North-West parts of the country. C. 1 he movement of Petroleum products through other means of transport namely rail and road involves consumption of Petroleum products like diesel by these transport sectors themselves and to that extent the consumption of Petroleum products in the country, which can otherwise be saved, would not be available to the country. C. 1 he movement of Petroleum products through other means of transport namely rail and road involves consumption of Petroleum products like diesel by these transport sectors themselves and to that extent the consumption of Petroleum products in the country, which can otherwise be saved, would not be available to the country. " ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, in our view there is no doubt that the land is required for a public purpose as defined in clause (f) of Sec. 3 of the Act. ( 11 ) IN the result, there is no substance in the petition and it is rejected. Rule discharged with costs. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has prayed that ad-interim relief granted by this Court be continued for some time so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. Considering the aforesaid facts and particularly the fact that the Project is required to be completed within 33 months, this prayer requires to be rejected. However, we order the ad-interim relief to continue upto 8/03/1991 with a specific understanding that no further extension of the same would be granted. .