Allowed

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018WP(C)/28676/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed delay by the State Government in assigning 3.94 acres of land to an aided school despite a prior 2016 order. Directing the Government to act expediently considering the petitioner's offer to forego 1.44 acres, the Court fixed a new deadline of six weeks for assignment of the balance land.

What did the court decide?

The State Government is directed to pass orders for assignment of 2.50 acres of land to the petitioner school within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 28676 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ST. ANTONYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VALIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER REV.FR.MELKON

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SMT.MINI GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE(U) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶11

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶13

4 THEREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶14

5 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶15

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.Y.JAFFER KHAN, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

==================

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 28676 of 2018

¶21

==================

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of November, , 2018

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶25

“a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st respondent to finalize the proceedings for the assignment of 3,94 Acres of land comprised in Survey Nos. 2856/1, 2857/3-1 and 2858/2-1-1 of Muttathara Village in favour of the petitioner school as stipulated in Exhibit P-12 judgment of this Honourable Court and as undertaken in Exhibit P-15 Government Order forthwith.

¶26

b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st respondent to act on Exhibits P-17 and P-18 representations expeditiously.

¶27

c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the leased property having an extent of 3.94 Acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.2856/1, 2857/3-1 and 2858/2-1-1 of Muttathara Village, otherwise than through procedure established by law.

¶28

d. grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶29

Heard Sri.D.Koshore, learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioner and Sri.Y.Jaffer Khan, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

The petitioner is an aided school run by St.Antony's Forane Church, Valiyathura under the Latin Catholic Arch Diocese of Thiruvananthapuram. The said aided school is regulated by the provisions contained in the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules framed, thereunder. The 1^st respondent State

¶32

W.P.(C)28676/18 - : 3 :-

¶33

Government in the year 1957 had given on lease 3.94 acres of property comprised in Sy.Nos.2856/1, 2857/3-1 and 2858/2-1-1, of Muttathara Vilalge, Thiruvananthapuram, to the petitioner school. The said property is now used as a play ground of the school, it is stated.

¶34

As per Ext.P-1 G.O.(Ms).No.201/05/Rev. dated 18.6.2005, the 1^st respondent State Government had directed to waive the lease rent arrears and to assign the properties given to the educational institutions @ Rs. 100/- per cent and the District Collectors had thus been directed to implement Ext.P-1. The complaint of the petitioner is that, in spite of the general norms issued by the Government as per Ext.P-1 G.O.(Ms). issued as early as on 18.6.2005, the benefit of the said Government order has not been extended to the petitioner's school, while several other schools have been given the benefit of Ext.P-1 G.O. The petitioner would assert that they are entitled to have the property assigned on it on the basis of Ext.P-1 G.O.

¶35

Shorn of all the litigative details, it is seen that this Court as per Ext.P-12 judgment rendered on 29.6.2016 had considered the said issue and has directed the 1^st respondent State Government to take steps to assign the land to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P-1 G.O. However, as per Ext.P-13 order dated 11.11.2015, the 1^st respondent

¶36

W.P.(C)28676/18 - : 4 :-

¶37

has rejected the application for assignment of the said land to the petitioner's school on the very same grounds, which were negated by this Court in Ext.P-12 judgment. The petitioner impugned Ext.P-13 order and had also filed a Contempt Case (Civil).No.1603/2015 [arising out of Ext.P-14 W.P.(C).No.34308/2014]. During the pendency of the said contempt proceedings, the respondents had filed Review Petition as R.P.No.961/2016, seeking to review Ext.P-12 judgment. This Court had dismissed the Review Petition as per Ext.P-14 order dated 15.11.2016. Thereafter, the Government had passed Ext.P-15 order dated 3.12.2016 suo motu cancelling Ext.P-13 order dated 11.11.2015 and had undertaken before this Court in the said contempt case that fresh orders would be passed by the respondent State Government as directed in Ext.P-12 judgment, without much delay. On the basis of the said assurance of the respondents, the said contempt of court case was closed on the basis of the abovesaid Ext.P-15 order.

¶38

The complaint now voiced by the petitioner is that despite the lapse of more than 20 months, the State Government has not passed orders to assign the said property to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P-1 G.O.(Ms), as directed in Ext.P-12 judgment. According to the petitioner, after the issuance of Ext.P-15 order dated

¶39

W.P.(C)28676/18 - : 5 :-

¶40

3.12.2016, the 1^st respondent had issued Ext.P-16 notice dated

¶41

21.2.2017, whereby the petitioner was invited to attend a personal hearing on 27.2.2017. According to the petitioner, in the hearing held on 27.2.2017, the competent Principal Secretary to the State Government had requested the petitioner as to whether they are prepared to forego a portion of the 3.94 Acres of land held by them so that steps could be taken for assignment of the balance land area. In response thereto, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-17 statement dated 9.3.2017 before the 1^st respondent, wherein it has been stated in para 3 thereof that the petitioner school is agreeable for assignment of 2.50 acres, instead of the original 3.94 acres of land. Since no further action was forthcoming from the 1^st respondent, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-18 reminder on 5.7.2017, and even thereafter there was no response.

¶42

It has to be borne in mind that the time limit stipulated by this Court in Ext.P-12 judgment has expired long ago. True that orders were passed by the Government in purported compliance of Ext.P-12 judgment, which even the 1^st respondent had later withdrawn so as to pass fresh orders in the light of the dismissal of the Review Petition and for effective compliance of Ext.P-12 judgment, etc. The matter should not be delayed any further.

¶43

W.P.(C)28676/18 - : 6 :-

¶44

Now it is submitted by Sri.Y.Jaffer Khan, learned

¶45

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the basis of the written instructions that he has received from the 1^st respondent that orders will be passed by the 1^st respondent State Government in compliance with Ext.P-12 judgment within 3 months. The original time limit stipulated by this Court in Ext.P-12 judgment was only 3 months. The said time line has expired long ago. The last hearing in the matter was on 27.2.2017, as mentioned in Ext.P-16. Now it is more than 22 long months after the hearing conducted on 27.2.2017. Therefore, the 1^st respondent should not delay the matter any further. The 1^st respondent will pass orders strictly in terms of the directions of this Court in Ext.P-12 judgment in W.P.(C).No.34308/2014 so as to consider the assignment of land coming to 2.50 acres as mentioned in Ext.P-17 in terms of Ext.P-1 G.O., without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶46

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶47

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶48

sdk+

¶49

W.P.(C)28676/18 - : 7 :-

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 201/05/REVENUE D RESPONDENT.	G.O.(MS) ATED 16.06.2005 OF 1ST
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 01.03.2010 IN WP THIS HONOURABLE	JUDGMENT DATED (C) 4707 OF 2010 OF COURT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 28.01.2011	REPORT NO. 118.11 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 9066 DATED 05.02 RESPONDENT.	PROCEEDINGS NO. B5- .2011 OF THE 5TH
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 20.09,2012 IN WP THIS HONOURABLE	JUDGMENT DATED (C) 21918 OF 2012 OF COURT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 9267/UI/2013/RD 1ST RESPONDENT.	PROCEEDINGS NO. DATED 24.03.2014 OF THE
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.07.2014 ALONG ACCOUNT DETAILS BEFORE THE 1ST R	SUBMISSION DATED WITH THE SCHOOL MADE BY THE PETITIONER ESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 04.11.2014	G.O.(MS) NO. 456/2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 11.12.2014 ALONG WITH THE M GOVERNMENT ORDER THE LOCATION SKE	PROCEEDINGS NO. 903/14 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AHAZAR DATED 09.12.2014 DATED 04.11.2014 AND TCH.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE WITHIN MUNICIPAL AREAS RULES 1995	ASSIGNMENT OF LAND ITY AND CORPORATION .

¶53

W.P.(C)28676/18 - : 8 :-

¶54

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C) 34308/2014. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2015 IN WP(C) 34308/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.594/2015/RD DATED 11.11.2015 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2016 IN R.P. 961/2016 IN WP(C) 34308/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 586/2016/RD DATED 03.12.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 79396/U1/2015/RD DATED 21.02.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 09.03.2017 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.07.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nousha Santhosh @ Nousha Rani Vs Village Officer

P.O. Joseph Vs the Tahsildar

Sakker Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Mohammedali @ Bapputty Vs State of Kerla

M.N. Padmini Gopinath Vs the District Collector

Sabeer Vs District Collector