IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 18181 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MALATHI AMMA, MANAGER, VIVEKA SAGARAM U.P.SCHOOL, VELLARAKKAD, (VIA) ERUMAPPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VADAKKANCHERRY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR. 3. KADANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.VELLARAKKAD-680 584. 4. SRI. OUSEPH, S/O. PORINCHU, CHALISSERY HOUSE, VELLARAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.S.DIVAKARAN FOR R4 SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR FOR R4 SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA FOR R4 SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R4 SRI.C.SUCHITHRA FOR R4 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R3 SRI.SAJITH KUMAR KANGHINGHAT FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 18181/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD.4.5.84. P2. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.22.12.98. P3. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.9.8.01. P4. COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN OF THE SCHOOL. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.9.06. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER OF R3 DTD.23.3.07. P7. COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF BOUNDARIES IN QUESTSION. P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.17.12.1966. P9. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.14.9.94. P10. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.8.9.94. P11. COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD.29.10.04. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.18181 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the manager of Viveka Sagaram Upper Primary School, Vellarakkad. She has filed this writ petition with the grievance that, to enable the 4th respondent to have road access to his newly filled up land, respondents 1 and 2 have demarcated southern and western portion of the school compound as canal puramboke without notice to the petitioner, as per Exts.P5 and P6, and are proposing to demolish six class rooms of the school. The petitioner challenges the said action of respondents 1 and 2 seeking the following reliefs: “i) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P5 and P6 and set aside the same. ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the present attempt of the respondents 1 and 3 to demolish the school buildings, at the behest of the 4th respondent to give way to construct a road for him as evident from Exhibits P5 and P6 are unjust, illegal and harsh. iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the proposal in Exhibits P8 to P10 and pass orders on merit, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from demolishing the buildings in the VSUP school compound and took (sic) possession of the demarcated lands till a decision is rendered by 2nd respondent on Exts.P8 to P10.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. Of course, this is a property dispute. But that does not mean that 2 respondents 1 and 2 can unilaterally take possession of the properties in the possession of the school, especially in the public nature of the institution, which is an educational institution. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to the effect that the properties in question shall not be taken possession of without first measuring the land after prior notice to the petitioner and hearing the petitioner. If, even after measurement, the respondents intend to take possession of the property in question, a reasoned order shall be served on the petitioner and the petitioner shall be given at least one month's time to take further action against that order, if the same is adverse to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge