NaraIn Dat Vs. the Superintendent of Dehra Dun - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
act no. i of 1894 (land acquisition act), sections 9, 18 and 25 - effect of omission of owner to state his claim under section 9--reference under section 18--limitations of powers of judge. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - on behalf of the government no objection has been taken to the amount awarded by the district judge, but it is sought to support their case and to defeat the appeal by urging that no reason, much less a substantial reason, has been shown for the appellant having failed to make a claim under section 9 of the act. the judge says in his award that the appellant might well have thought that he had made it sufficiently clear to government what he wanted. it is perfectly true that the appellant offered to sell his property to government for es. the result is that the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs.tudball and muhammad rafiq, jj.1. this appeal arises out of proceedings taken under the land acquisition act. notice was issued in pursuance of section 9 of the act to the present appellant and he made no claim as directed under that section. the collector made an award and the appellant applied for a reference to the district court. in the district court an objection was taken that as he had made no claim under section 9, the court was not empowered to award any compensation greater in amount than that mentioned in the collector's award. the learned district judge held that because there had been previous negotiations between the government on the one part and the appellant on the other in which the government had offered to purchase the land for rs. 65,000, whereas the appellant had offered to sell for or rather had refused to sell for, anything less than es. 80,000, therefore there was sufficient reason for the appellant not having put forward his claim under section 9 of the act. he, therefore, proceeded to hear the reference. on behalf of the government no objection has been taken to the amount awarded by the district judge, but it is sought to support their case and to defeat the appeal by urging that no reason, much less a substantial reason, has been shown for the appellant having failed to make a claim under section 9 of the act. in our opinion the appellant showed no reason, much less a sufficient reason, for not making the claim. the judge says in his award that the appellant might well have thought that he had made it sufficiently clear to government what he wanted. it is perfectly true that the appellant offered to sell his property to government for es. 80,000 which is the value he places upon it. when, however, action was taken and notice issued to him under the act, those negotiations had fallen through and come to an end. if the appellant had made his claim he would have asked for rs. 83,000, the value he places on the property plus 15 per cent, for compulsory acquisition. so it is quite clear that there was no reason whatsoever for his not having made his claim under the act. the object of making an owner claim under section 9 of the act, is set out in the case of the secretary of state for india in council v. bishan dat (1911) i.l.r. 33 all. 376. it is to enable the land acquisition officer to make a fair, reasonable and proper award based upon a proper inquiry after the proper means have been placed before him for holding such inquiry. no inquiry as to the value of the land is stated to have been made beforehand, and if the appellant wished to retain his right of reference to the district court he ought in justice to the government to have come forward and placed before the collector, in pursuance of the notice issued, all available means to enable that officer to arrive at a correct and proper award, the bare fact that previous negotiations for sale had taken place was no reason whatsoever for not putting forward his claim under section 9 of the act. it certainly was not sufficient reason. in our opinion section 25, clause (2), gives the judge the right to decide as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons for a man's non-appearance and not putting forward his claim under section 9. in the present case no reason in our opinion was given for this non-appearance. in this view the district judge ought not really to have allowed in his award to the appellant any sum greater than that awarded by the collector. but as the government has taken no objection to the amount awarded by the district judge either in the form of a cross-appeal or cross-objections, it is not for us to interfere with the amount so awarded. the result is that the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs.