Madras High Court
Good Shepherd Matriculation School vs The District Collector on 22 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 88
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P(MD)No.242 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.191 & 192 of 2019
Good Shepherd Matriculation School,
Rep. by its Correspondent
Fr.John Sibi,
Simon Colony,
Colachel,
Kodimunai Post,
Kanyakumari District – 629 251. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collector Office Campus,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram,
Thuckalay,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Thuckalay,
Kanniyakumari District.
4.The Directorate of Matriculation Schools,
College Road,
Chennai – 6. ... Respondents
(R – 4 is suo motu impleaded vide
order, dated 22.01.2019)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned order of the first respondent, dated 10.12.2018, quash the
same and consequently direct the third respondent to grant patta to the
petitioner in respect of 2.55 acres land under his occupation comprised in
re-survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony Village, Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District or in alternative to grant lease in favour of the
petitioner on the basis of the memorandum of the second respondent,
dated 15.03.2013 within a specified time frame.
For Petitioner : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
For Respondents : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu,
Additional Government Pleader.
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 10.12.2018 and consequently seeking a direction to the third respondent to grant patta to the petitioner in respect of 2.55 acres of land under the occupation of the petitioner comprised in re-survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanniyakumari District or in alternative to grant lease to the petitioner on the basis of the memorandum of the second respondent, dated 15.03.2013 within a specified time frame.
2. The basis of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a correspondent of Good Shepherd Matriculation School, which originally was http://www.judis.nic.in named as St. Jude Nursery and Primary School in the year 2007, 3 which was a Nursery School formed as a part of Tsunami project and subsequently in the year 2014, the name of the School was changed into Good Shepherd Matriculation School.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present School is functioning in the land comprised in re-survey No.203/2 of Simon Colony Village, wherein 43.250 cents and the School was established as per the norms of Code of Regulation of Matriculation Schools and various Government orders from the academic year 2007. The petitioner's School is having a constructed area to an extent of 3760.90 square feet. The learned counsel further contended that the School having been constructed only on the approval, which was granted by Simon Colony Village Panchayat and the said plan was approved in proceedings dated 25.04.2007. The construction is made in accordance with the plan approval and without any deviation. The learned counsel further contended that at present, the School is running with the total strength of 400 students, out of which, 247 rural students are studying in the petitioner's School and according to G.O.Ms.No.48, School Education Department, dated 21.07.2004 prescribed for rural areas, the required land for establishing Higher Secondary Matriculation School is 3 acres. However, the petitioner's School is having only 43.250 cents, which is less by 2.5 acres, which is required under G.O.Ms.No.48. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that between the petitioner's School and the Simon Colony Village, there was a salt marsh land to an extent of 2.59 acres, which is comprised in re-survey No.204/18, which is now classified as Natham Poromboke land and the said land is in occupation of the people of Simon Colony, which is in existence in front of the School premises and for the sole purpose of the School from the year 2013 onwards.
5. The petitioner would further contend that it is evident from the said proceedings that the said land has been levelled by the said Simon Colony people. The petitioner seems to have claimed that he had sent several representations from the year 2013 onwards and since there was no action taken by the respondents in allotting the said land of 2.590 acres comprised in re-survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony Village and later on, the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the same, which forced him to file W.P(MD)No.9591 of 2018 to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, the first respondent by the impugned order, dated 10.12.2018, has rejected the claim of the petitioner, which forced the petitioner to file the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order, dated 10.12.2018.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on notice, has produced the proceedings of the respondents http://www.judis.nic.in 5 which paves the way to file the present writ petition and also produced some documents.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that 2.59 acres comprised in re-survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony Village, which has been classified as “Natham Poromboke” land, initially was under the occupation of people of Simon Colony, which was situated just opposite to the petitioner's School and now in the petitioner's posseesion, wherein the petitioner has constructed a compound wall safe guarding 2.59 acres of land. The learned counsel further contended that already there is a memorandum issued by the second respondent as early as on 15.03.2013, wherein, the second respondent has stated that the land in re-survey No.204/18 was reclaimed by the fisherman community of Simon Colony and it is the fisherman community, who had levelled the property and brought it to an usable condition. However, since nobody else is staying in the said land, the petitioner took possession of the property of the said land so as to utilise the same for its own purpose for running the School. The rejection made by the first respondent to give patta to the petitioner's land is totally violative of Article 30(1) and 30(1-A) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further http://www.judis.nic.in 6 contended that the respondents failed to consider the power to regulate minority institution is not unlimited so as to destroy the rights conferred under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further contended that the land ought to have been given to the petitioner as the same is under the control and possession of the petitioner.
9. In contrary to the arguments putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently contended that during the Colachel port construction project 11 families, who lost their land for the construction of the said project, were given house site patta in alternative to their land which was acquired. Since it was levelled by Simon Colony people some obstructions were there, hence the land was not utilised by 11 families and they were allotted some other alternate land. The present survey number consisting of 2.59 acres were utilised by Simon Colony fisherman people. The present land belongs to the Government, which has now been encroached upon by the petitioner, who had also unauthorizedly compounded the poramboke land and had put up 22 pillars in the said land preventing the officials in the name of having a minority institution. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also submitted that under these circumstances, the land has to be reclaimed from the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order was passed rejecting the petitioner's request.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
10. It is very surprising to note that even after 32 lives of toddlers, who were School going children, were burnt alive from Kumbakonam School fire accident, the State Government has not learnt a lesson from the above accident. The present writ petitioner who claims that he is the Correspondent of the School who had constructed 3760.90 square feet of a building in which he proudly claims that 400 students are studying with the approval of the School Education Department and out of 400 students, 247 rural students are studying.
11. The petitioner has not stated anything about the approval granted by the Matriculation authorities and if so, he had the approval, on what basis, the Matriculation authority has granted approval to the petitioner to run the School in such a small area of 3760.90 square feet and construction of a building to cater the strength of 400 students. When G.O.No.48, dated 21.07.2004 prescribes for establishing Higher Secondary Matriculation School, 3 acres is required, but sill the petitioner, who is merely possessing a building licence from the Tamil Nadu Building (Licensing) Act, 1965, in Form-D, which is not sufficient and running the School. One could infer from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had secured the School licence for establishing a Primary School in the year 2007 and subsequently, the School has been upgraded to Matriculation School. In such a small building with an extent of 3760.90 square feet, it would be suffocating for 400 students to study http://www.judis.nic.in 8 in the said School. Though the petitioner's claim that it is a minority School, no such evidence has been produced even the minority Schools would have to adhere and follow the guidelines issued by the School Education Department prescribing the area in which a classroom or a School building has to be constructed.
12. In this regard, though the petitioner has not made the Directorate of Matriculation School, College Road, Chennai – 6, as party-respondent to the Writ Petition and hence, this Court suo motu impleads the said Directorate of Matriculation school as the fourth respondent in the present Writ Petition. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause-title today itself.
13. Asfar as the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner has got no right to claim survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony Village as a matter of right. Merely because he is running a School opposite to the land which is classified as “Natham poramboke”, the petitioner cannot crave any right citing under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which enshrines all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. However, the Constitution does not give any right to the minority Schools to encroach upon the public land for their benefit and for their personal http://www.judis.nic.in 9 use. Here, the petitioner who claims re-survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony, has not only encroached upon the land, but has also constructed a compound wall engulfing the said land, apart from erecting 22 pillars without any authority. The petitioner is not only an encroacher, but also a trespasser into the Government land without any authority or any valid permission. I am afraid to see that the respondents are keeping quiet by permitting the petitioner to encroach upon the Government Land. Despite knowing that an extent of 2.59 acres in re-survey No.204/18 of Simon Colony belongs to the Government, the Government has not taken any steps to secure the said land from the petitioner. Knowing the fact that the said land was already allotted to 11 families, who had lost their lands to Colachel port project, the concerned respondent neither able to get the land to 11 families, who have lost their land for their project, nor prevented the petitioner from illegally encroaching upon the said land. All these encroachments and the act of trespassing have taken place just in front of the eyes of the respondents, who have been a mute spectator state seeing the activities done by the petitioner. The respondent kept quiet despite knowing that the land has been trespassed, encroached and thereafter, the petitioner has put up 22 pillars on the land. The petitioner has got no right over the land and without getting any permission, he has constructed the pillars which were not obstructed or objected by the respondents herein. Merely because the petitioner is running a School and that too minority in nature, cannot claim the Government land for the http://www.judis.nic.in 10 petitioner's utilisation that too after encroaching the same. Under these circumstances, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The respondents are directed to take steps forthwith to reclaim the land under possession of the petitioner by following procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by initiating action under Section 7 of the said Act and the respondents shall also follow the procedures scrupulously as per the said Act without allowing the petitioner to find any loopholes in the procedures being followed.
14. It is unimaginable that the petitioner is able to run a School merely with 3760.90 square feet of built up area in which he claims to impart education to 400 students. Considering the safety of the students, this Court directs the first respondent and the Directorate of Matriculation Schools to inspect the School within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and to file a report to this Court whether the School is established as per the prescribed norms by the School Education Department. While doing so, the impleaded fourth respondent is also directed to file in his report jointly in consultation with the first respondent with regard to the recognition and permission granted by the School Education Department to the petitioner's School. The report shall also contain the extent of the School building which is really operating and the number of students studying and facilities in the School. http://www.judis.nic.in 11
15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
16. For reporting compliance, post the matter on 30.01.2019.
22.01.2019 Note:- Issue order copy on 22.01.2019 and communicate the same to the fourth respondent at the earliest.
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
To
1.The District Collector,
Collector Office Campus,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram,
Thuckalay,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Thuckalay,
Kanniyakumari District.
4.The Directorate of Matriculation Schools,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.242 of 2019
22.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in