ORDER

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 though initially was a society constituted under the Societies Registration Act, by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the U.P. State Universities 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 2 on 10-1-1974. Though proceedings were initiated in the year 1971-72 for acquisition of the lands for construction of the university cumpus 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 published 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 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, these appeals came to be filed.

2. The crucial question that arises for consideration is : whether the 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)(i) of Section 4 of the Universities Act the fund held by the appellant became a statutory fund over which the members had no control. The fund should be expended only for the purpose of management and improvement of the university and for no other purpose. The "local fund" as defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act has wide meaning over which the State Government has control under the Act. Therefore, the view of the High Court is untenable. Shri P.A. Chowdhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, raised three-fold contentions. It is contended that the view of the High Court is sustainable on the ground that unless the university is a local authority, the purpose of acquisition cannot be declared to be a public purpose. The local authority ejus dem generis would be like municipality having statutory control over its local funds over which the State Government also has control. In this case, the university is an autonomous university over which the State has no financial control. The local fund as understood in the etymological sense would be construed to be the fund analogous to the fund held and expended by the municipality etc. In support thereof, he places strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji & Anr. v. The State of Bombay (now Gujarat) & Ors.1 and State of West Bengal & Ors. v. P.N. Talukdar & Ors.2. With a view to appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to look to the provisions of the Act.

3. The "public purpose" as was available prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 is an inclusive definition as contained in Section 3(f) of the Act which includes the provision of villages in districts in which the local Government shall have declar