{"id":95848,"date":"1996-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2"},"modified":"2017-07-29T19:56:45","modified_gmt":"2017-07-29T14:26:45","slug":"kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2","title":{"rendered":"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  929-30 of 1981\n\nPETITIONER:\nKASHI VIDYAPITH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOTILAL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nK.  RAMASWAMY &amp; G.B. PATTANAIK\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGEMENT<\/p>\n<p>1996 SCR SUPP (4)  5<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>These appeals by special leave arise  from the order of the Division Bench<br \/>\nof the Allahabad High Court made on May 10. 1979 in W.P. Nos. 2171 and 2172<br \/>\nof 1977. The admitted facts are that the appellant Vidyapith though<br \/>\ninitially was a society constituted under the Societies Registration Act,<br \/>\nby operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4  of  the  U.P.  State<br \/>\nUniversities Act, 1973 (for short, the &#8216;Universities Act&#8217;), it became a<br \/>\ndeemed university w.e.f. 16.1.1974 after the publication of the<br \/>\nnotification under Section (4)2 on 10.1.1974. Though proceedings were<br \/>\ninitiated in the year 1971-72 for acquisition of the lands for construction<br \/>\nfor the university campus buildings including the staff quarters etc., the<br \/>\nnotification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of<br \/>\n1894) (for short, the &#8216;Act&#8217;) came to be. published in the State Gazette on<br \/>\n19.4.1974.  After enquiry was conducted under Section 5-A declaration,<br \/>\nunder Section 6(1) was published on March 27, 1977, The respondents came to<br \/>\nquestion the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the<br \/>\ndeclaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Division Bench allowed the writ<br \/>\npetitions and set aside the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that<br \/>\nthe procedure contemplated in Chapter-VII  of the Act was not followed. The<br \/>\nUniversity is not &#8220;other authority&#8221; under Section 3(31) of the General<br \/>\nClauses Act,<\/p>\n<p>1897 as applicable to the State of U.P. The &#8220;other authority&#8221; should be<br \/>\nunderstood ejusdem generis as municipality, gram panchayat etc. The fund<br \/>\nheld by the Appellant cannot be held to be a local fund under the control<br \/>\nof the State. Under those circumstances, unless the State makes a part of<br \/>\nits contribution for the acquisition, it is not a public purpose and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the declaration under Section 6 was invalid. Calling that order<br \/>\nin question, these appeals came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The crucial question that arises for consideration is  whether the view<br \/>\ntaken by the High Court is correct in law ? It is contended by Shri Shiv<br \/>\nPujan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, that the view of the High<br \/>\nCourt is not correct in view of the provisions contained in the<br \/>\nUniversities Act, After the appellant became a deemed university, by<br \/>\noperation of sub-section (3)(1) of  Section  4 of the Universities Act the<br \/>\nfund held by the appellant became a statutory fund over which the members<br \/>\nhad no control. The fund should  be expended only for the purpose of<br \/>\nmanage-ment and improvement of the university and for no other purpose. The<br \/>\n&#8220;local fund&#8221; as defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act has<br \/>\nwide meaning over which the State Government  has control under the Act.<br \/>\nTherefore, the view of the Court is untenable, Shri P.A. Chowdhary, learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel appearing for the respondents, raised three-fold<br \/>\ncontentions, It is contended that the view of the High Court is sustainable<br \/>\non the ground that unless the university is a local authority, the purpose<br \/>\nof acquisition cannot be declared to be a public purpose. The authority<br \/>\nejusdem generis would be like municipality having statutory control over<br \/>\nits local funds over which the State Government also has control. In this<br \/>\ncase, the university is an autonomous university over which the State has<br \/>\nno financial control. The local fund as understood in etymological sense<br \/>\nwould be construed to be the fund analogous to. the fund held and expended<br \/>\nby the municipality etc. In support thereof, he places strong reliance on<br \/>\nthe judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1802930\/\">Valjibhai  Muljibhai Soneji &amp; Anr.  v. The<br \/>\nState of Bombay<\/a> (now Gujarat) &amp;  Ors.,  |19&amp;4] 3 SCR 686: and State of West<br \/>\nBengal &amp; Ors. v.P.N.  Talukdar &amp;  Ors., (1966) 1 SCJ 28. With a view to<br \/>\nappreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to look to the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The &#8220;Public purpose&#8221; as was available prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984<br \/>\nis an inclusive definition as contained in Section 3(1) of the Act which<br \/>\nincludes the provision of villages in districts in which the local<br \/>\nGovernment shall have declared by notification in the official gazette<br \/>\nwhich is necessary for  the Government to  make such provision and &#8230;.<br \/>\nUnder second proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, no such declaration shall<br \/>\nbe made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be<br \/>\npaid by a company or wholly or partly out of the public revenue or fund<br \/>\ncontrolled or managed by a local authority-It is not in dispute that the<br \/>\nestablishment of university and construetion of the buildings including<br \/>\nstaff quarters, hostels, play-ground etc. is a public purpose provided if<br \/>\nit is done by an authority within the meaning of Section 3(31) of General<br \/>\nClauses Act, The main emphasis of Shri Chowdhary is that unless the<br \/>\nauthority is one that is analogous to the one like municipality, it would<br \/>\nnot be a local authority. The State has the control over the local fund<br \/>\nheld by the municipalities etc., but the funds held or controlled by the<br \/>\nuniversity are not under the control of the State Government and that,<br \/>\ntherefore, unless the procedure prescribed in Chapter VII of the Act is<br \/>\nfollowed, it is not public  purpose. We do not find the contention to be<br \/>\nacceptable.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 4(3)(i) of the Universities Act postulates thus : &#8220;(3) As from the<br \/>\ndate appointed under sub-section (2) ..\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) the society known as the Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi shall be dissolved,<br \/>\nand all property movable and immovable, and rights, powers and privileges<br \/>\nof the society shall be transferred to and vest in the University and shall<br \/>\nbe applied to the objects and purpose for which the University is<br \/>\nestablished;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 8 of the Act envisages the inspection and control over the<br \/>\nuniversities and it postulates, among other things, that the State<br \/>\nGovernment shall have the right to cause an inspection made by such person<br \/>\nor persons as it may direct, of the University or any constituent college<br \/>\nor any institute maintained by the University, including its buildings etc.<br \/>\netc. to cause an inquiry made in the like manner in respect of any matters<br \/>\nconnected with the administration and finances of the University.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 33 gives power of control over the provident fund etc. of the<br \/>\nteaching staff. Section 55(3) obligates the university to prepare annual<br \/>\naccounts and the balance sheet duly audited which shall together with the<br \/>\ncopies of the report be submitted by the Executive Council to the Court and<br \/>\nto the State Government. Section 55(8) gives control to the State<br \/>\nGovernment  Over  the finances as well. Section 55-A gives power to impose<br \/>\nsurcharge and Section  55(8) and to take action against the erring Vice-<br \/>\nChancellor. It also gives power to have the control over the grants made by<br \/>\nthe State Government, Government of India, or the University Grants<br \/>\nCommission or any international organisation or any other fund by the<br \/>\nfunding authorities. It would thus be clear that the State Government has<br \/>\nfinancial control over the university.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is true that the University is supposed to be autonomous in its<br \/>\nmanagement. But the limited question that arises for consideration is<br \/>\nwhether the State has control over the funds of the University ? As seen<br \/>\nfrom the above provisions, the State has sufficient control over the funds<br \/>\nto be expended by the university. Though the expenditure is to be made by<br \/>\nthe university, the funds come from the contributions made by various<br \/>\nauthorities. Under those circumstances, it is a local fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>The further question is whether the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII<br \/>\nshould be followed ? It is true that this Court in Valjibhai&#8217;s case (supra)<br \/>\nhad held that the State Transport Corporation constituted under the Bombay<br \/>\nTransport Corporation Act was a company and the procedure prescribed in<br \/>\nChapter VII was not followed and that, therefore, though the Road Transport<br \/>\nCorporation came to be constituted for public transport, it is not a public<br \/>\npurpose. It is seen that decision has no application to the facts in this<br \/>\ncase. In that case the State Transport Authority came to be constituted<br \/>\nunder a State enactment which was repealed by the Central Act. The<br \/>\nCorporation was not constituted under the Central Act. Under the State<br \/>\nstatute that continued to be a company and the Government had not<br \/>\ncontributed any money for the expenditure to be incurred for acquisition.<br \/>\nUnder those circumstances, this Court came to hold that the acquisition was<br \/>\nbad in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Talukdar&#8217;s case (supra) a Bench of three Judges of this Court was called<br \/>\nupon to consider whether the acquisition of Ramakrishna Mission was for a<br \/>\npublic purpose Without following the procedure prescribed under Section 40<br \/>\nin Chapter VII of the Act. Though the object of the institution was very<br \/>\nWide and it intended to propagate religious, social educational and<br \/>\nteaching activities for the benefit of the public, it was held that<br \/>\nconstruction of the staff quarters, play-ground and hostel was not a public<br \/>\npurpose. Since the acquisition was for an integral scheme which cannot be<br \/>\nseparated, the entire notification came to be quashed. The ratio therein<br \/>\nalso has no application to the facts in this case. Once it is held that the<br \/>\nUniversity was duly constituted under the Act, the very object of the<br \/>\nestablishment of the university is for imparting higher education to the<br \/>\nstudents. Without the buildings to the staff and the students, hostel,<br \/>\nplayground etc., the object of the establishment of the university cannot<br \/>\nbe achieved. Under these circumstances, it must be that the acquisition is<br \/>\nfor a public purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Judges, with due respect, have applied the doctrine of ejusdem<br \/>\ngeneris to the other authority under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses<br \/>\nAct to be like  a municipality etc. When the &#8220;local authority&#8221; was widely<br \/>\ndefined under the General Clauses Act to include &#8220;any authority&#8221;, a<br \/>\nuniversity must be construed to be any other authority within the meaning<br \/>\nof Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act as applicable to the State of<br \/>\nU.P. Therefore, the establishment of a university being by an authority<br \/>\nestablished under the Universities Act, the amount spent from the<br \/>\nuniversity fund is a local fund within the meaning of Section 3(31) of the<br \/>\nGeneral Clauses Act and that, therefore, there is no need for the State<br \/>\nGovernment again to contribute from  its exchequer towards the costs of<br \/>\nacquisition of the property. Consequently, the procedure prescribed under<br \/>\nChapter VII of the Act need not be followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is then contended by  Shri Chowdhary that since there was inordinate<br \/>\ndelay of over 22 years from 1974, it is not a case for interference. We<br \/>\nfind no force in the contention. As seen, when the declaration Was<br \/>\npublished, the appellants had gone to the Court and had the declaration<br \/>\nquashed. In view of the fact that the view  taken by the High Court was not<br \/>\ncorrect  in  law,  we cannot uphold the quashing of declaration under<br \/>\nSection 6. However, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to conduct and<br \/>\ncomplete the award enquiry within a period of six months from the date of<br \/>\nthe receipt of this order and then pass appropriate award accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 929-30 of 1981 PETITIONER: KASHI VIDYAPITH RESPONDENT: MOTILAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/07\/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY &amp; G.B. PATTANAIK JUDGMENT: JUDGEMENT 1996 SCR SUPP (4) 5 The following Order of the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-29T14:26:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T14:26:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\"},\"wordCount\":1852,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\",\"name\":\"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T14:26:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-29T14:26:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T14:26:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2"},"wordCount":1852,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2","name":"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T14:26:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kashi-vidyapith-vs-motilal-and-ors-on-24-july-1996-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kashi Vidyapith vs Motilal And Ors on 24 July, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}