Case: Ganapathi National Middle School Vs. M. Durai Kannan (Dead) By Lrs. &amp; Ors

The undisputed facts are that the appellant Middle imparting education upto the 8th standard was established way back in 1929, up to the 8th standard. It is an aided institution. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the school and decree of eviction came to be passed. The appellant had moved the Government for acquiring the land and building and continuing the institution in the same premises. Consequently, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, (for short, the ‘Act?) came to be published in the State Gazette on July 7, 1982. After conducting an inquiry under Section 5A and rejection of the objections, the declaration under Section 6(1) came to be published on June 29, 1983. The respondents challenged the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 in Writ Petition No. 6337/1983. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated July 4, 1986, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification under Section 4(1). On appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the same in limine. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

Reasoning:
The High Court has taken the view that since the appellant-institution is being run by an individual which is not a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, it is neither a company nor a society and, therefore, acquisition does not serve any public purpose but only private interest. As a consequence, the acquisition is bad in lawIt is not in dispute that the entire expenditure for the acquisition is being met from the public funds, as accepted by the High Court. Under those circumstances, it is clearly a case of public purpose. It could be seen that when the order of eviction was sought to be enforced, this Court while upholding the decree of eviction had imposed a condition that the undertaking shall not be enforced when the land is sought to be acquired. This Court had recognised the need for the continuance of the educational institution in the said place and that the State had taken action to acquire the land at the expense of the State to provide the education to the middle school going children. Under those circumstances, the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that public purpose is not served in acquiring the land but benefits the private individuals.