IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 34264 of 2000(D) ----------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. P.K. JAYARAJAN, SON OF P. KUTTAPPA, PUDUSSERY HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR P.O. CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. P.K. RAVINDRAN, SON OF P. KUTTAPPA, PUDUSSERY HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR P.O. CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYOOR. 6. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 7. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, GURUVAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A.NO. 9105 OF 2008 DATED 16.7.2008 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, GDB FOR R4 TOR6 SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R5 SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SC, GDB FOR R4 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,SC,GURUVAYUR D.B FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 58564 OF 2000 IN OP 34264 OF 2000 DISMISSED 16.7.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/-V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 26.11.1999 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SBEFORE THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CHAPTER V OF GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM ACT, 1978 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER BEARING NO. 61/2000 DATED 27.3.2000 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 5.10.2000 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATD 5.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.9.2001 ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.9.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. EXT.P11TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE TIMES OF INDIA, NEW DELHI DATED 19.3.2002 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CHAPTER II OF THE CBSE BYE-LAWS EXT.P14 STRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN WPC 17244 OF 2003 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL DATED 11.9.98 EXT.R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 3.2.1999 3 EXT.R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.3.99 OF THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.5.1999 EXT.R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.7.1999 BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.R4(F) RELEVANT PAGES OF BYELAW CBSE EXT.R4(G) MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. EXT.R4(H) FEES RECEIPT OF STUDENTS OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL. EXT.R4(I) PAY BILL FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2007 OF GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM. EXT.R4(J) ADMINISTRATION REPORT OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM FOR THE YEAR 2006 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. No. 34264 OF 2000 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 C.R. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Petitioners are challenging Exts. P1 and P2 notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of 90.87 Ares of land for the purpose of an English Medium (CBSE) School run by the Guruvayur Devaswom Board through a society formed by it by name Guruvayur Devaswom Educational Society. Petitioners have no case that land is not required for the school which has, as of now, around 1500 students. The School follows CBSE syllabus and has classes from Std. I to Std. XII. Since the school does not have sufficient space in accordance with the norms prescribed by the CBSE Board, the Devaswom requested for acquisition of land. It is seen from Ext. R4(c) that Guruvayur Devaswom Commissioner, who is the final authority to approve financial sanction for the Devaswom to acquire land for the school vide proceedings dated 13.9.99 recognised the requirement of 2 land for the school and therefore he requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and Devaswom, to acquire the land. Pursuant to the same, the impugned notifications were issued, which are under challenge in this O.P. 2. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and standing counsel appearing for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. The main argument raised by the petitioners is that the Guruvayur Devaswom Board has no authority to invest it's funds for educational purposes. According to them, Section 27 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act authorises investment only in schools where Malayalam and Sanskrit are taught. Since the challenge is mainly based on Section 27, the question to be considered is whether the Devaswom Board is authorised to invest it's funds in English Medium school. In the first place, no one including the petitioners, has challenged the establishment of the English Medium CBSE school by the Devaswom 10 years back. Secondly it is seen that the Devaswom Managing Committee's request is accepted by the Devaswom Commissioner vide Ext.R4(c) and the Government was also satisfied that the requirement 3 of land for the school is a public purpose and therefore notifications are issued for acquisition of land. Even though we do not approve petitioners' right to question the authority of the Devaswom to establish and run a CBSE school through an educational society formed by it. We still proceed to consider whether there is any substance in the argument. Section 27(f) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act is as follows: 27. Authority of Committee to incur expenditure for certain purposes:- ..... (f) the establishment and maintenance of any educational institution which provides for encouragement of education in the Sanskrit or Malayalam language or the maintenance of any such educational institution owned or managed by the Devaswom or in which the Devaswom has interest; ... It is clear from the above provision that Devaswom is not only free to establish educational institutions for encouraging education in Sanskrit or Malayalam, but is also free to maintain any educational institution owned or managed by the Devaswom or in which Devaswom has interest. It is not in dispute that the Educational Society which is 4 running the school is formed and promoted by the Guruvayur Devaswom and it has no members other than the officials and trustees of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. In fact, petitioners are not disputing the fact that President of the Guruvayur Educational Society which owns and manages the School is the Chairman of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and the Secretary of the Devaswom is the Secretary of the Society. Besides this, all managing committee members of the Society are officials of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. The entire fund of the Society admittedly flows from theGuruvayur Devaswom and therefore Educational Society is nothing but a subsidiary organisation promoted by the Devaswom for establishing and running schools. Since Guruvayur Devaswom Board is mainly engaged in management of temple, it cannot take up establishment and running of school directly and therefore for this purpose they established Educational Society. We do not think setting up of a separate Educational Society which is totally under the control of the Devaswom Board affects the authority of the Devaswom to invest it's funds in setting up and running of educational institutions which it is 5 authorised under Section 27(f) above referred. It is specifically authorised in the said Section that Devaswom can invest in the establishment and management of schools in which Devaswom has interest. Nobody can doubt that Devaswom does not have interest in the school set up by an Educational Society promoted, financed and managed by it completely without involvement of any stranger. It is rather the duty of the Devaswom to provide educational facilities to the children of their large number of employees at least. Therefore we find that Devaswom is perfectly justified in setting up and running of the school through the Society promoted by it. Since the school was set up 10 years back, it is the duty of the Educational agency under the Devaswom to provide facilities for its expansion such as providing play ground for the students, which is the main purpose for which land is acquired. 3. The next contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is with reference ot Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act which states that if acquisition is for companies and societies, compensation has to be deposited in advance. According to the petitioners compensation is 6 not deposited in advance and therefore acquisition is not valid. In this case, even though acquisition is for school, which is owned and managed by a society, the authority which approached the Government for acquisition is Guruvayur Devaswom. Since the Society is managed by Devaswom, we do not find anything wrong in the Devaswom approaching the Government for acquisition of land for development of the school which is under its management though through educational society promoted by it. Petitioners have not expressed any doubt as to whether they will get compensation for the land being acquired. It is common knowledge that Guruvayur Devaswom has huge funds with it and counsel for the Devaswom submitted that if acquisition proceeds, the Devaswom is willing to deposit the compensation amount in advance. We do not think this technicality should defeat or delay acquisition proceedings initiated for the purposes of the school. Therefore to protect the interests of the petitioners, there will be direction to the Guruvayur Devaswom Board to deposit the compensation amount immediately on demand by the District Collector to deposit such amount in advance. 7 4. The last ground raised by the petitioners is that even though the land proposed to be acquired under Exts. P1 and P2 notifications are 90.87 Ares, acquisition proceedings were discontinued for the remaining lands, that is the land other than the extent owned by the petitioners. Since acquisition proceedings in respect of remaining land got lapsed, petitioners' case is that this Court should set aside the impugned notifications covering mainly petitioners' land. However, we do not find any substance in this contention because the main area of 2.10 acres belongs to the petitioners and the balance land under acquisition is only an insignificant portion. Counsel for the Devaswom contended that if the petitioners' land cannot be acquired, then the purpose will not be served with the balance extent of land belonging to others. He further stated that Devaswom will request the acquisition authorities to proceed for acquisition of other lands, as and when this O.P. is disposed of. It is seen that acquisition is held up for the last 8 years only because of the pendency of this case in this Court. We find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners that acquisition proceedings are not continued for remaining lands. Along with 8 acquisition of petitioners' land, respondents are free to acquire balance small extent of land also since purpose for acquisition is the same. 5. Counsel for the petitioners also relied on Exts. P5 and P9 communications issued by the Devaswom Commissioner whereunder he has stated that Devaswom has no authority to run an English Medium School. We are surprised to note that this communication is issued by the Devaswom Commissioner who himself has recommended acquisition of land for the purpose of English Medium School run by the Devaswom. The famous Sreekrishna Temple attracts large number of devotees from all over India. It has large funds most of which are utilised for the purpose of welfare of the devotees. In the course of time, Guruvayur has developed as a big township which has attracted lot of institutions like hotels, banks, hospitals, etc. Besides all these, large number of people are employed by the Devaswom itself. School is an absolute necessity in the area and the strength of around 1500 students in English Medium school started by the Devaswom through Educational Society under CBSE syllabus is enough proof of it. We are of the view that it is for the Devaswom to provide educational 9 facilities to children of it's employees and the people in the Guruvayur Township, which is developed around the temple and on account of the temple. The establishment and development of the school is obviously public purpose and there is no justification for this Court to interfere with acquisition proceedings particularly when the finding of the Devaswom Commissioner in Ext.R4(c) is that school does not have facilities in accordance with norms prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education. We therefore dismiss the O.P. leaving freedom to the respondents to continue acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 10