http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GANAPATHI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. DURAI KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)36

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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  imparting education upto  the 8th standard was established 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 Acquisition 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 publishecd 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 limini. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      The only  question which  arises for consideration is : whether the  acquisition is  for a public purposes? 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   not  a  society  and,  therefore, acquisition does  not serve  any  public  purpose  but  only private interest. As a consequence, the acquisiton is bad in law. The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High  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  the consitutional  mandate of  the State  to  provide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

compulsory education.  It is  now settled  law of this Court that right  of education  is a  fundamental right  to  every child.  The   State  cannot   impart  education  by  itself. Therefore, the  agency through  which it organises imparting education is  recognised private  institutions according  to its procedure.  As regards  the State  of Tamil  Nadu, it is governed by  the provisions  of the  Tamil  Nadu  Recognised Private Schools  (Regulation) Act  1973, Act 29 of 1974 (for short),   the   ’Education   ’Act’).   Section   3   defines "educational agency" in relation to any other private school to mean any person or body of persons permitted or deemed to be permitted  under this  Act to establish and maintain such other private institution. Section 5(1) of the Act envisages that the educational agency of every private school proposed to be  established on  or after the date of the commencement Act shall make an application to the competent authority for permission  to   establish  such   school.  The   prescribed procedure in that behalf  has been enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 5 particular relevant schools which is not an educational institution  established under the Act. Since it is an educational institution already established in 1929 it gives no definition of educational agency under Section 3(b) which  wad   deemed  school   established  under  this  Act. Therefore,  when   the  educational   institution  has  been established under the Act receiving grant-in-aid. Under Art. 29(2) of  the  Constitution  "No  citizen  shall  be  denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them". Thereby the educational insitution  receiving aid  is an instrumentality or education  agency of  the State  imparting education  opn behalf of  the State  which is  a fundamental  right of  the citizens. It  is not  in dispute that the entire expenditure for the  acquisition is  being met from the public funds, as accepted by the High Court. Under those circumstances, it is clearly a case of public purpose. It could be seen that when the order  of eviction was sought to be enforced, this Court while  upholding  the  decree  of  eviction  had  imposed  a condition that  the undertaking  shall not  be enforced when the land is sought to be acquired. This Court had recognised the need  for the continuance of the educational institution in the  said place  and that  the State  had taken action to acquire the  land at the expense of the State to provide the education to  the middle  school going children. Under those circumstances, the  High  Court  was  wholly  wrong  in  its conclusion that  public purpose  is not  served in acquiring the land but benefits the private individuals.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed  but   in   the circumstances  without   costs.  The  writ  petition  stands dismissed.