CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 929-30 of 1981 PETITIONER: KASHI VIDYAPITH RESPONDENT: MOTILAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/07/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK JUDGMENT:
JUDGEMENT
1996 SCR SUPP (4) 5
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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 sub-section (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. 16.1.1974 after the publication of the
notification under Section (4)2 on 10.1.1974. Though proceedings were
initiated in the year 1971-72 for acquisition of the lands for construction
for 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 on
19.4.1974. After enquiry was conducted under Section 5-A declaration,
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 as 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.
The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the view
taken by the High Court is correct in law ? It is contended by Shri Shiv
Pujan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, that the view of the High
Court is not correct in view of the provisions contained in the
Universities Act, After the appellant became a deemed university, by
operation of sub-section (3)(1) of Section 4 of the Universities Act the
fund held by the appellant became a statutory fund over which the members
had no control. The fund should be expended only for the purpose of
manage-ment and improvement of the university and for no other purpose. The
“local fund” as defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act has
wide meaning over which the State Government has control under the Act.
Therefore, the view of the Court is untenable, Shri P.A. Chowdhary, learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents, raised three-fold
contentions, It is contended that the view of the High Court is sustainable
on the ground that unless the university is a local authority, the purpose
of acquisition cannot be declared to be a public purpose. The authority
ejusdem generis would be like municipality having statutory control over
its local funds over which the State Government also has control. In this
case, the university is an autonomous university over which the State has
no financial control. The local fund as understood in etymological sense
would be construed to be the fund analogous to. the fund held and expended
by the municipality etc. In support thereof, he places strong reliance on
the judgment of this Court in Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji & Anr. v. The
State of Bombay (now Gujarat) & Ors., |19&4] 3 SCR 686: and State of West
Bengal & Ors. v.P.N. Talukdar & Ors., (1966) 1 SCJ 28. With a view to
appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to look to the
provisions of the Act.
The “Public purpose” as was available prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984
is an inclusive definition as contained in Section 3(1) of the Act which
includes the provision of villages in districts in which the local
Government shall have declared by notification in the official gazette
which is necessary for the Government to make such provision and ….
Under second proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, no such declaration shall
be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be
paid by a company or wholly or partly out of the public revenue or fund
controlled or managed by a local authority-It is not in dispute that the
establishment of university and construetion of the buildings including
staff quarters, hostels, play-ground 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.
Section 4(3)(i) of the Universities Act postulates thus : “(3) As from the
date appointed under sub-section (2) ..
(i) the society known as the Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi shall be dissolved,
and all property movable and immovable, and rights, powers and privileges
of the society shall be transferred to and vest in the University and shall
be applied to the objects and purpose for which the University is
established;”
Section 8 of the Act envisages the inspection and control over the
universities and it postulates, among other things, that the State
Government shall have the right to cause an inspection made by such person
or persons as it may direct, of the University or any constituent college
or any institute maintained by the University, including its buildings etc.
etc. to cause an inquiry made in the like manner in respect of any matters
connected with the administration and finances of the University.
Section 33 gives power of control over the provident fund etc. of the
teaching staff. Section 55(3) obligates the university to prepare annual
accounts and the balance sheet duly audited which shall together with the
copies of the report be submitted by the Executive Council to the Court and
to the State Government. Section 55(8) gives control to the State
Government Over the finances as well. Section 55-A gives power to impose
surcharge and Section 55(8) and to take action against the erring Vice-
Chancellor. It also gives power to have the control over the grants made by
the State Government, Government of India, or the University Grants
Commission or any international organisation or any other fund by the
funding authorities. It would thus be clear that the State Government has
financial control over the university.
It is true that the University is supposed to be autonomous in its
management. But the limited question that arises for consideration is
whether the State has control over the funds of the University ? As seen
from the above provisions, the State has sufficient control over the funds
to be expended by the university. Though the expenditure is to be made by
the university, the funds come from the contributions made by various
authorities. Under those circumstances, it is a local fund.
The further question is whether the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII
should be followed ? It is true that this Court in Valjibhai’s case (supra)
had held that the State Transport Corporation constituted under the Bombay
Transport Corporation Act was a company and the procedure prescribed in
Chapter VII was not followed and that, therefore, though the Road Transport
Corporation came to be constituted for public transport, it is not a public
purpose. It is seen that decision has no application to the facts in this
case. In that case the State Transport Authority came to be constituted
under a State enactment which was repealed by the Central Act. The
Corporation was not constituted under the Central Act. Under the State
statute that continued to be a company and the Government had not
contributed any money for the expenditure to be incurred for acquisition.
Under those circumstances, this Court came to hold that the acquisition was
bad in law.
In Talukdar’s case (supra) a Bench of three Judges of this Court was called
upon to consider whether the acquisition of Ramakrishna Mission was for a
public purpose Without following the procedure prescribed under Section 40
in Chapter VII of the Act. Though the object of the institution was very
Wide and it intended to propagate religious, social educational and
teaching activities for the benefit of the public, it was held that
construction of the staff quarters, play-ground and hostel was not a public
purpose. Since the acquisition was for an integral scheme which cannot be
separated, the entire notification came to be quashed. The ratio therein
also has no application to the facts in this case. Once it is held that the
University was duly constituted under the Act, the very object of the
establishment of the university is for imparting higher education to the
students. Without the buildings to the staff and the students, hostel,
playground etc., the object of the establishment of the university cannot
be achieved. Under these circumstances, it must be that the acquisition is
for a public purpose.
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 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.
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.
The appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without
costs.