Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kishan Chand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- gujarat secondary education act (18 of 1973) section 40: [v.s.sirpurkar & deepak verma,jj] minority aided institution appointment of teachers -requirement to obtain prior approval from state held, the requirement under the act that every minority institution should obtain the prior approval from the competent authority to appoint the teachers is not an interference in the selection process. it would be perfectly all right for a minority institution to select the candidates without any interference form the government. however, the requirement of this prior approval is necessitated because it is for the government to see as to whether there was actually posts available in the said institution as per the strength of students and secondly; whether the candidates, who were sought to be appointed, were having the requisite qualification in terms of the rules and regulations of the education department. such a requirement does not amount to interference in the internal administration of minority institution.order1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. notice on respondents 2, 3 and 4 to 20 has been returned with postal remarks 'address incomplete'. notice on respondent no.22 has been served. under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on them. they are not appearing either in person or through counsel. notice was limited only to the issue of applicability of the provisions of amendment act 68 of 1984.4. notification under section 4[l] of the land acquisition act, 1894 was published on october 24, 1961. the land acquisition officer by his award had granted compensation @ rs. 2,500 per bigha. on reference, the additional district judge by his award and decree dated december 19, 1973 enhanced the compensation @ rs. 5,000 per bigha. the high court on appeal while enhancing the compensation to rs. 12000 per bigha has given the benefits of the amendment act 68 of 1984 by enhancing the solatium and interest and additional amount. in view of the fact that the reference court had decided the matter in december 1973 the respondents are not entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest and additional benefit under sections 23[2], 28 and 23[1-a].5. the appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. instead, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation and solatium at 15%. the judgment of the high court is accordingly modified. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Notice on respondents 2, 3 and 4 to 20 has been returned with postal remarks 'Address Incomplete'. Notice on respondent No.22 has been served. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on them. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel. Notice was limited only to the issue of applicability of the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

4. Notification under Section 4[l] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on October 24, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award had granted compensation @ Rs. 2,500 per bigha. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated December 19, 1973 enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 5,000 per bigha. The High Court on appeal while enhancing the compensation to Rs. 12000 per bigha has given the benefits of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 by enhancing the solatium and interest and additional amount. In view of the fact that the reference Court had decided the matter in December 1973 the respondents are not entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest and additional benefit under Sections 23[2], 28 and 23[1-A].

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Instead, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation and solatium at 15%. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified. No costs.