GANAPATHI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL versus M. DURAI KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 07-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GANAPATHI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL 
v. 
M. DURAi KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Ss.4( 1 ), SA-Acquisition of premises for 'educational institution--Mid-
C die school receiving grant-in-aid, functioning in rented premises-Landlord 
got decree of eviction-Acquisition of premises under the Act-Landlord's 
objection that since the School was nm by an individual and not by a 
recognised society, acquisition of premises was not in public interest but in 
interest of a private individuaHfeld, educational institution receiving aid is 
D an i11st1w11enta/ity or education agency of the State impaning education on 
behalf of the Stat,,-.-Entire expenditure for acquisition is being met from 
public funds-Need for continuance of educational institution in the premises 
was well recognised-Action to acquire the premises at the expense of State 
was taken to provide education to middle school going childrm-!t is dearly 
a case of public purpose. 
E 
F 
G 
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 : 
S.3(b }-Educational agency-Middle School established in 1929 by a 
private individual and receiving grant-in-aid-Held, since the school is not an 
educational instinllion established under the Act as it was established in 1929, 
it does not require recognition under the Act-But it is an "educational agency" 
defined under s.3(b ), and therefore, it is a deemed school established under 
the Act by operation of s.3(b ). 
Constitution of llldia, 1950 : 
Anicles 12, 29(2) and 45-Sc/1001 receiving grant-in-aid-Held, is an 
instrumentality or education agency of State impaning education on behalf of 
the State which is a fundamental right of the citizens. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2995 of 
H 1986. 
356 
-·. 
GAN AP ATI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL v. M. DURA! KANNAN 
357 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.86 of the Madras High A 
Court in W.A. No. 761 of 1986. 
K. Parasaran, A.T.M. Sampath and P.N. Ramalingam for the Appel-
!ants. 
B. Parlhasarthy for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment and order of 
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated August 11, 1986 made 
in Writ Appeal No. 761/1986. The undisputed facts are that the appellant-
middle school imparting education upto the 8th standard was established 
B 
c 
way back in 1929 upto 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 for continuing the institution in the same 
premises. Consequently, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Ac-
D 
quisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short, the 'Act') came to be published in the 
State-Gazette on July 7, 1982. After conducting an enquiry 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. 
E 
The only question which arises for consideration is : whether the F 
acquisition is for a public purpose? 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 con.5equence, the acquisition is bad 
in law. The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High G 
Court is sustainable in law? Article 45 of the Constitution enjoins the State 
to provide free and compulsory education to all children upto age of 14 
years. It is constitutional mandate of the State to provide compulsory 
education. It is now settled law of this Court that right of education is a 
fundamental right to every every child. The State cannot impart education 
by itself. Therefore, the agency through which it organises imparting educa-
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SUPP. 4 S.C.R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.