KASHI VIDYAPITH versus MOTILAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 5 · Decided: 24-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
KASHI VIDYAPITH 
v. 
MOTILAL AND ORS. 
JULY 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 3(j) (As it stood prior to Amend-
ment Act 68 of 1984), 4(1), 5-A and 6 and Chapter VII. 
A 
B 
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 : Sections 4(2)(3)(i), 8, 33, 55(3)(8) 
C 
and 55-A. 
General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 3(31). 
Kashi Vidyapith-Acquisition of lands for construction of the University D 
campus building and staff quarters-W>it challenging Notification and decla-
rati01i-High Cowt setting aside the declarati01t-Appeal-Held object of 
establishment of University is for impa1ting higher educatio1r-Acquisition for 
construction of University building including staff quarters, hostels and play-
ground was for a public purpose-Amount spent from the University fund is 
E 
a local fund within the meaning of section 3(31) of General Clauses 
Act-Therefore it is not necessary that State Gove1nnzent should again con-
bibute front its exchequer toward acquisition-Procedure presclibed under 
Chapter VII of the land acquisition need not be followed-Held a University 
must be constn1ed to be any other authority within the meaning of Section 
3(31) of General Clauses Act-Quashing of declaration by High Court cannot F 
be upheld. 
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Rule of ejusdem generis-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases :"Other authority''-''Local ftmd"-Meaning of 
Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji & Anr. v. The State of Bombay (now 
Gujarat) & Ors., [1964) 3 SCR 686 and State of West Bengal & 01~. v. P.N. 
G 
Talukdar & Ors., (1966) 1 SCJ 28, held inapplicable. 
H 
5 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 929-30 of 
B 
c 
1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.79 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.W.P. No. 2171-2172 of 1977. 
\. 
Shiva Pujan Singh for the Appellant. 
P.A. Choudhary, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Rajni K. Prasad and (Ms. Shiel 
Sethi) Adv. (NP) for the Respondents. 
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 
D thm,gh initially was a society constituted under the Societies Registration 
Act, by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the U.P. State Univer-
sities 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 
E 
F 
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 pl'blished 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 
G understood ejus dem 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, 
H these appeals came to be filed. 
.. 
y 
• 
KASHIVIDYAPITH v. MOTILAL 
7 
The crucial question that arises for consideration is : whether the A 
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 B 
no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.