LexTHE SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 20, 2001 [S.P. BHARUCHA CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, B N. SANTOSH HEDGE, S.N. VARIAVA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Constitution of India-Article 30(/A) inserted by Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act, 1978-Minority Educational institutions-Compul- sory acquisition of pmperty-Provisiom of General Land Acquisition Act- C Held, not adequate-There must be spec(fic provisions ensuring that the amount of compensation fued do not in any way restrict or abrogate the rights ~f such institutions guaranteed under Article 30-Requirement can be satisfied even by enacting in the general law by amendment a provision specially relating to acquisition o.f property o.f such institutions-Holvever, Parliament and State Legislatures were granted time upto 31.5.2002 to make necessary laws, .failin11 which pendin11 and incomplete acquisition ~f property D o.f minority educational institutions ·would lapse-Land f'..cquisition Act, 1894-Madras Reguisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956. Petitioner was religious minority educational institution. A building owned by petitioner within its college campus was leased out to the Post E and Telegraph Department. State Government issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the said building. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed a writ petition and writ F appeal before the High Conrt. Thereafter an award was passed for pay- ment of certain compensation under the Act. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present SLP and writ petition for a declaration that in view of Article 30(1A) of the Constitution inserted by Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act did not G apply to and empower the acquisiiiou of property of minority educational institutions and for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. On behalf of petitioner, it was contended that Article 30 clause (IA) of the Constitution required the Parliament or State Legislatures to make H 273 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A specific laws for acquiring the property of minority educational institu- tions and thus after the introduction of clause (lA) the State could not act under the general law as for example the Land Acquisition Act; that the special law would itself have to acquire the property or specifically authorise State by fixing the compensation amount by taking into consid- B eration all the relevant factors and in the absence of such a special law, in the instant case, the acquisition of petitioner's building was bad in law. On behalf of respondent, it was contended that the provisions of a statute that provides for the acquisition of property in general, would be adequate for acquisition of property of minority educational institutions C if the provisions of Article 30(1A) was read into the provisions of the General Land Acquisition Act; that alternatively, a period of six months time may be granted to enable Parliament to effect the necessary changes in the Land Acquisition Act, and till such time pending and uncompleted acquisitions should not be quashed. D Disposing of the matters, the Court HELD 1.1. Article 30 clause (IA) requires the Parliament or State Legislatures to make a specific law for compulsory acquisition of prop· erty of minority educational institutions, the provisions of which should E ensure that the amount payable to the educational institutions for the acquisition of property is such as would not either restrict or abrogate the rights guaranteed under Article 30. Necessarily, such a law must require the taking into account of factors that do not come into play in the determination of amounts payable in relation to the acquisition of the F properties of others and are, therefore, not set out in the general acquisi- tion statutes. Thus, the provisions of a statute that provides for acquisi· lion of property in general, as for example, the Land Acquisition Act, are not adequate for the compulsory acquisition of property of minority educational institutions because what is payable thereunder is only com- G pensation. (280-D·E·l'; 280-D] 1.2. It is not necessary that a statute should be enacted exclusively for the compulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational institutions, but it is necessary that in a law
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.