Case: Kashi Vidyapith Vs. Motilal &amp; Others

These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court made on May 10, 1979 in W. P. Nos. 2171 and 2172 of 1977. The admitted facts are that the appellant Vidyapith though initially was a society constituted under the Societies Registration Act, by operation of(2) of Section 4 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the "Universities Act"), it became a deemed university w.e.f.after the publication of the notification under Section 2 onThough proceedings were initiated in the yearfor acquisition of the lands for construction of the university campus buildings including the staff quarters etc., the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the "Act") came to be published in the State Gazette onAfter enquiry was conducted under Sectiondeclaration, under Section 6(1) was published on March 27, 1977. The respondents came to question the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and set aside the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that the procedure contemplated in Chapter VII of the Act was not followed. The University is not "other authority" under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable to the State of U. P. The "other authority" should be understood ejusdem generis as municipality, gram panchayat etc. The fund held by the appellant cannot be held to be a local fund under the control of the State. Under those circumstances, unless the State makes a part of its contribution for the acquisition, it is not a public purpose and, therefore, the declaration under Section 6 was invalid. Calling that order in question, these appeals came to be filed.

Reasoning:
4. It is not in dispute that the establishment of university and construction of the buildings including staff quarters, hostels,etc. is a public purpose provided if it is done by an authority within the meaning of Section 3(31) of General Clauses Act. The main emphasis of Shri Chowdhary is that unless the authority is one that is analogous to the one like municipality, it would not be a local authority. The State has the control over the local fund held by the municipalities etc., but the funds held or controlled by the university are not under the control of the State Government and that, therefore, unless the procedure prescribed in Chapter VII of the Act is followed, it is not public purpose. We do not find the contention to be acceptable.The learned Judges, with due respect, have applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis to the other authority under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act to be like a municipality etc. When the "local authority" was widely defined under the General Clauses Act to be like a municipality etc. When the "local authority" was widely defined under the General Clauses Act to include "any authority", a University must be construed to be any other authority within the meaning of Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act as applicable to the State of U. P. Therefore, the establishment of a University being by an authority established under the Universities Act, the amount spent from the University fund is a local fund within the meaning of Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act and that, therefore, there is no need for the State Government again to contribute from its exchequer towards the costs of acquisition of the property. Consequently, the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII of the Act need not be followed.12. It is then contended by Shri Chowdhary that since there was inordinate delay of over 22 years from 1974, it is not a case for interference. We find no force in the contention. As seen when the declaration was published, the appellants had gone to the Court and had the declaration quashed. In view of the fact that the view taken by the High Court was not correct in law, we cannot uphold the quashing of declaration under Section 6. However, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to conduct and complete the award enquiry within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order and then pass appropriate award accordingly.