The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a specific law to protect the rights of minority educational institutions in the acquisition of their properties, as guaranteed under Art.30 of the Constitution of India.

Writ Petition (C) No. 2/1985.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Court is called upon to interpret for the first time the provisions of clause (1A) of Art.30 of the Constitution of India. Cl. (1A) was introduced in the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.

Art. 30, subsequent to the forty-fourth amendment, reads thus:-

"30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institution.

(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language".

2. The writ petitioner is a religious minority institution founded by the members of the Society of Jesus, which is a religious congregation in the Catholic Church. The petitioner has established and is administering an educational institution called the St. Joseph's College in Tiruchrappally, Tamil Nadu. The college was established more than 150 years ago. It has been accorded autonomous status by the University of Madras in April, 1978. Within the campus of the college is a building owned by the petitioner. The said building was let out in 1910 to the Post & Telegraph Department of the Government of India and has since then been used as a Post Office. On 26th October, 1974 the petitioner wrote to the Senior Superintendent of Posts, Tiruchirappally Division, seeking an enhancement of the rent of Rs. 830/-per month of the said building. There was no response. On 30th October, 1974 the fourth respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappally, issued to the petitioner a notice under S.3(1) of the Madras Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956 to commence the acquisition of the said building. On 11th December, 1974 the petitioner objected to such action. Nothing happened over five years. Then, on 3rd May, 1979 a notification was issued under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the said building. On 24th February, 1980, the petitioner filed objections to the proposed acquisition. On 17th February, 1982 the S.6 notification was gazetted. On 4th June, 1982 the fourth respondent issued to the petitioner notices under S.9(3) and S.10 directing the petitioners to appeal before him in regard to their claim to compensation. On 9th September, 1982 the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court at Madras challenging the said acquisition. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and a Writ Appeal was filed by the petitioner. The Writ Appeal was dismissed on 18th April, 1984. In the meantime, on 6th April, 1984 an award of Rs. 1,56,377/- was made in favour of the petitioner, being the amount payable to it upon the acquisition of the said building. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the order of the Writ Appeal and also this Writ Petition under Art.32. The Writ Petition seeks a declaration that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act do not apply to and empower the acquisition of the properties of minority educational institutions and the quashing of the notifications under Ss. (4) and (6) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said building.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bobde submitted that a provision identical to clause (1A) of Art.30 was inserted by the same Constitution Amendment Act which deleted Art.31 and Art.19(1)(f) from the Constitution and added Art.300A. In his submission, the provision was inserted because Parliament, acting as a constituent body, was aware to the fact that while removing the right to property from the Chapter on Fundamental Rights in the Constitution, it was of the utmost importance in secular India to preserve that right in a suitable form in relation to the property of minority educational institution. It was realised that the right of the minorities