Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.2.1985 passed by the respondent No.4, the Additional Collector, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No.50 of 1981-82 as also for appropriate direction holding that the requisition for acquisition of land appertaining to holding No.138 situated at Harikishun Sah Lane in the town of Deoghar is not for public purpose as defined in section 3 (f) of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act".) 2. The fact of the case lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioners are the owners of aforementioned holding having been acquired the same by virtue of registered deed of partition. The petitioners case was that before partition the proportion question was in occupation of tenants against whom several suits have been filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide and personal retirements and the said suits are still pending. A notification under section 4 of the said Act was published purporting to acquire 10 decimals of land appertaining to holding No 138 belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners were served with served with notices for filing their objections by 6.1.1985 by the Additional Collector, Deoghar. On enquiry, the petitioners learnt that the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar sent a requisition for acquisition of the said property for the purpose of extension of compound of Sri Baidyanath Temple due to growing rush of pilgrims in shrawan Mela and other occasions. The requisition was signed by the Magistrate in-charge of the temple, the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar and the deputy Commissioner, Santhal parganas himself. This gave rise to Land acquisition case No.50 of 1981-82, copy of the requisition is Annexure 1 to the writ application, in which temple was described as company as defined under Sec.3 (e) of the said Act. In the notification issued under Sec.4 of the Act it was shown that the said property was sought to be acquired for public purpose at the cost of the government copy whereof in Annexure 2 to the writ application. The petitioners further case was that the requisition for acquisition was for a company cost of which was borne by religious Trust Board Department and as such provision contained in Part VII were required to be followed before issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It was further. The petitioners further case was that the requisition for acquisition was for a company cost of which was borne by religious Trust Board Department and as such provision contained in Part VII were required to be followed before issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It was further. stated that in absence of any agreement between the company and the appropriate Government the acquisition cannot be regarded as valid. Moreover, procedure provided under section 40 of the Act read with rule 4 of the Land Acquisition was not followed (Companies Rules, 1963) not only that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard in the enquiry rather they were asked to file their objections under Sec.5-A of the Act and as such the notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act is entirely vitiated. The petitioners, further case was pursuant to notice the petitioners filed their objection under section 5-A of the Act stating, inter alia, that purported act for acquisition of property is not properly public purpose, the property in question which is a pacca building is a the only property of the petitioners and that no public can be served by acquiescing the said building. The said objection under Sec.5-A of the Act was heard by the Additional collector who by his order dated 13.2.1985 rejected the objection illegally without holding any enquiry as contemplated under clause (i) of sub- section (2) of section 5-A of the said Act, copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ application. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents, stating, inter alia, that the acquisition of the holding is for public purpose inasmuch as Lord shiva temple, Deoghar is a pilgrimage place of public and Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is the trustee of the temple appointed by Religious Trust board. It was further stated that the management of Lord Shiva Temple at baidyanath Dham, Deoghar has been taken by the Religious Trust Board. Government of Bihar and Deputy commissioner is the trustee and one magistrate In charge has been appointed to manage the temple. Hence question does not arise for prior approval by the Bihar Hindu Religious trust Board. It was further stated that requisitioning authorities and competent authority to file requisition and therefore the question of colourable exercise of power by the authority does not arise. Hence question does not arise for prior approval by the Bihar Hindu Religious trust Board. It was further stated that requisitioning authorities and competent authority to file requisition and therefore the question of colourable exercise of power by the authority does not arise. It was reiterated that the management of this Temple has been taken by the Government and Deputy commissioner, Deoghar, is directly responsible for the same as trustee of the temple. It was further stated that before the impugned order is passed the Additional Collector heard the parties and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners. 5. Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently challenged the legality and propriety of the notification issued under section 4 of the said Act. Learned Counsel submitted that when religious trust board is not a Government and compensation for acquisition of the holding is not paid by the Government then Chapter vii of the said Act does not apply. Learned Counsel then submitted that under Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act merely given power to the State government to constitute board and thereby it cannot become a department of Government. Learned Counsel referring various provisions of the Bihar hindu Religious Trusts Act submitted that Hindu Religious Trust Board is statutory authority but not the State within the meaning of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that from the notification itself it would appear that the District Magistrate, Deoghar acted as an urgent of the Board and therefore he purported to acquire the, holding not as Collector of the Government. Lastly, learned Counsel submitted that the requisition exfacious is bad in law inasmuch as it was done by the Collector as an urgent of the Board and the compensation was to be paid from the trust fund. On the other hand, learned government Advocate in support of the requisition and the notification submitted that since the Trust Board is run by the Governor of Bihar and therefore it cannot be said that the said acquisition is not for and on behalf of the state. 6. Before appreciating the submission advanced by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties it is necessary to discuss the two important documents on the basis of which property in question sought to be acquired by the respondents. 6. Before appreciating the submission advanced by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties it is necessary to discuss the two important documents on the basis of which property in question sought to be acquired by the respondents. The first document is the requisition dated 3.9.1981 issued by the Sub-divisional officer addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, Dumka. (tract of the said requisition which is produced hereinbelow: - 6_831_PatLJR2_1996.htm 7. On the basis of this requisition notification purported to be under ction 4 of he Land Acquisition Act, 94 was published on 19.10.1984, copy which is Annexure 2 to the writ apication. The said notification reads as under: - 8. On the basis of these two documents, namely, the requisition and the notification issued under Sec.4 of the said Act be considered whether the acquisition and the impugned order passed under Sec.5-A of the said act are in accordance with law. From reading the requisition (Annexure 1) it was the admitted case of the respondents that Sri Baidyanath Temple was registered as company under the Indian companies Act. The requisition further says that a request was made to the deputy Commissioner for acquisition of land by the said company sponsored by religious trust board who have agreed to meet/the whole or part of the cost of the land acquisition out of the temple fund. 9. Section 3 (c) of the said Act defined the word "collector" as follows: - "the expression collector means the Collector of a district, and includes a deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate government to perform the function of a collector under this Act" 10. The expression "company" as defined under Sec.3 (e) reads as under: - "the expression Company means" - (i) a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), other than Government company referred to in clause (cc), (ii) a society registered under the societies Registration Act, 1850 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, other than a society referred to in clause (cc), (iii) a co-ope-ative society within the meaning of any lew relating to co-operative societies fo. r the lime being in force in any State, other than a co-operative society referred to in clause (cc), 11. r the lime being in force in any State, other than a co-operative society referred to in clause (cc), 11. The expression "appropriate government" as defined under Section 3 (ee) reads as under: - (ee) the expression "appropriate government" means in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union, the Central Government, and in relation to acquisition of land for any other purposes the State Government 12. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the requisition for acquisition of the property was issued by the Sub-divisional Officer for the company cost of which was to be borne by the Board out of trust fund. It was incumbent upon the authority to follow Part VII of the said Act. Further submission was that since the procedure provided under Sec.40 read with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies rules, 1963, were not followed the acquisition cannot be sustained in law. To appreciate this aspect of the matter, it would have to be cleared as to what is the status of the company or the trust managed by the Deputy Commissioner as trustee the case of the respondents-State. From the definition of the company as defined under Sec.3 (e) of the said Act which means a company registered under the India Companies act, 1882, or under the English Companies Act, 1862 or under the corporated 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, and a registered society within the meaning of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. A separate chapter in the said Act as Part vii is provided for acquisition of land for companies. Sec.37 provides that the previous consent of the appropriate government for the purpose, and execution of an agreement between the stale and the company is necessary if land was being acquired by the State for the company. The said Act further put a restriction of the application of sections 6 to 37 of the said Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for any company unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government and/or unless the company shall have executed the agreement. The said Act further put a restriction of the application of sections 6 to 37 of the said Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for any company unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government and/or unless the company shall have executed the agreement. In other words, two conditions are necessary for the purpose of proceeding for acquisition of land for the companies namely : - (i) the previous consent of the appropriate Government for the purpose, is obtained and (ii) the company having executed the agreement of the kind mentioned in the succeeding section. Sec.40 provides that the consent of the appropriate Government shall not be available unless it is satisfied either on the report of the collector under Sec.5-A sub-section (2)or by an enquiry of the kind conceived of it in Sec.40 itself is held. The enquiry contemplated under Sec.40 is required to be made through an officer appointed by the appropriate Government in order to determine the object of acquisition and also whether the purpose enumerated of the Act shall be achieved by the company by the said acquisition. according to Sec.41 of the Act, if the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, of the Collector under Section 5-A or on the report of the officer making an enquiry under section 40 that the proposed acquisition is for any of the purposes referred to its Section 40, it shall require the company to enter into an agreement with the appropriate Government, providing to the satisfaction of the appropriate government for the required condition. 13. Before deciding the validity of the acquisition and the order passed by the Additional Collector under Section 5-A of the said Act it is also worth to be noticed certain provisions of the bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 14. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents-State specific stand was taken that the property sought to be acquired under the Act is for public purposes for the widening of Baidya nath Temple which is run by the government and the Deputy commissioner is the trustee of the said temple. Even assuming that the said temple of the trust may have acquired the status of the statutory body but it cannot take the status of a state. Even assuming that the said temple of the trust may have acquired the status of the statutory body but it cannot take the status of a state. As pointed out above, from the plain reading of Sec.41 it is evident that unless the proposed acquisition is of three kinds mentioned in Clauses (a), (aa) and (b)of Sec.40 and is found to be needed for one or the other of those purposes neither is the appointed officer, to whom the enquiry is entrusted, empowered to give verdict in favour of a company and nor is the Government without recording such satisfaction expected to give consent. The agreement is then required under Sec.42 of the Act to be published in the Official gazette as soon as may be after execution and thereupon shall have the same effect as if it had framed part of the act. 15. If the case of the respondents-State of Bihar is accepted that the baidyanath Temple, (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) is managed by or run under the supervision of governor, the Deputy Commissioner being the trustee of the said temple then how the Deputy Commissioner can Act as a Collector within the meaning of the said Act for the purpose of issuance of notification under Sec.4 of the said Act. From the admitted fact which is evident from the requisition issued by the Sub-divisional Officer it was decided to acquire certain lands for the purpose of temple at the cost of the board and compensation to that effect shall be paid out of the temple fund, I have no hesitation to hold that non-compliance of Part VII of the said Act will render to get acquisition proceeding void. Admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner acted as an agent of the board and/or as trustee, he cannot acquire the land in the capacity of collector within the meaning of the said Act. I therefore, hold that in absence of compliance of Chapter VII of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, the acquisition cannot be sustained in law. Coming back to the impugned order purported to have been passed by deputy Collector under Sec.5-A of the said Act, I am of the opinion that in the light of my above finding the deputy Collector has erred in law in holding that acquisition of land is in accordance with law. 16. Coming back to the impugned order purported to have been passed by deputy Collector under Sec.5-A of the said Act, I am of the opinion that in the light of my above finding the deputy Collector has erred in law in holding that acquisition of land is in accordance with law. 16. For the reason aforesaid, this writ application is disposed of with the direction and observation mentioned above. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondents-State of Bihar to proceed for acquisition afresh after complying all the requirements of law as mentioned hereinabove. Order Accordingly.