(16) From all the above judgments, it is clear that once amount is paid to the Government body, which is CSIDC here, and is credited in its account, it becomes the fund of that body and if such fund is utilized for the purpose of payment of compensation, wholly or in part, that satisfies the requirements of Section 6 (1) read with Explanation 2, because, the principle which in fact is laid down in Pratibha Nema (supra) is that the genesis of the fund is not the determinative factor, but its ownership inpraesenti that matters. (18) In case on hand, the lands are not to be transferred in the absolute ownership of the company, but the lands are to be leased out to the company for certain period on certain conditions. That is to say that the respondent-company will never be the absolute owner of the acquired lands and the ownership ofthe lands shall be with the Government or the lesser. Section 41 of the L.A. Act falling in Part VII deals with the Agreement with appropriate Government, it talks about the transfer of the land to the company. Section 44A restricts further transfer and says that no company for which any land is acquired under this part shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or othenvise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. This gives a clear indication relating to the ownership of the land which in case of an acquisition under Part VII will go to the company, though the company would be under certain obligations for further transfer. In case on hand, there is no question of absolute transfer and the ownership shall always vest with the State Government/CSIDC and the private respondent will only have a lease hold right. Therefore, on this account present cannot be held to be an acquisition in which procedure under Part VII of the L.A. Act was required to be followed and only on account of payment of certain amount towards advance premium it cannot be held that the acquisition was a colourable exercise of power by the Government. (23) Now I shall consider the validity of notification u/s 4 (l). It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
