Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
A. Devasahayam & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool & Others – Respondent
W.P. No. 5877 of 2003
Decided On : 02-06-2016
For the Petitioner:M. Srikanth, Advocate
For the Respondent:P. Ravinder, M/s. N. Niyatha, Janaki Rami Reddy, T. Raja Damoji Rao, T. Suneetha, Rachana Vaddepalli, S. Nanda, Shantha Sree Elipe, J. Janaki Rama Reddy, Advocates.
Headnote:
A.P. Education Act, 1982 – Section 53 – A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – Section 8 (1) – A.P. Town Planning Act, 1920 – Section 15 2 (2) – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 – Section 388 – Challenging action of Municipal Corporation granting approval for a layout forming part of property of the above school and consequential action of trespondent Nos.5 to 7 and 22 to 96 in making constructions therein – Petitioners contend that as per Grant-in-Aid rules, property of schools was hypothecated to Government for receiving Grant-in-Aid – They contend that in 1973, the American Baptist Church Private Limited transferred management of properties of schools to M/s. Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited, that Society by 9th respondent raised a dispute over control of the properties of school and said society sold various extents of property belonging to school from 1996 onwards, including Ac.3.65 cts forming part of school play ground in above survey numbers to respondent Nos.5 to 7. Petitioners contend that purchasers applied to 1st respondent for sanction of layout for above property; that there is specific prohibition of Section 53 of Act, 1982 (against alienation of any land belonging to an educational institution receiving Grant-in-Aid from State funds without permission of the State Government; the 2nd respondent had objected to grant of layout by letter addressed to 1st respondent; 1st respondent has initially rejected an application for layout; but subsequently 1st respondent conducted general body meeting of 1st respondent and through a resolution he granted approval for layout in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 – Held, Admittedly by endorsement, 1st respondent had refused grant of approval for layout in respect of extent of Ac.3.65 cts in E.C.M. High School compound onbasis of an objection raised by the District Education Officer, Kurnool pointing out that the said land belongs to the High School and is under the control of the Education Department – It is clear that the said layout is sought to be located in the play grounds of a school, he ought not to have granted sanction of layout to the respondent No.5, particularly in view of the earlier objection raised by 2nd respondent – It is clear abdication of statutory duty by 1st respondent in this regard – It has to be held that sanction of layout by the 1st respondent in the subject land belonging to the E.C.M. High School, Kurnool is clearly contrary to law and unsustainable and consequently no constructions should have been made by any of private respondents on the basis of the said sanction – Therefore all structures erected by private respondents in extent of Ac.11.98 cts in Sy. Nos.123 (P), 125 (P), 126 (P) and 127 (P) of Kurnool town are liable to be demolished by 1st respondent after notice to the private respondents (respondent nos. 5, 6 and 16 to 96) or other persons interested therein and the land of the ECM High School is liable to be restored to the 3rd respondent by evicting all private respondents – Consequently t1st respondent is directed to demolish the structures erected by private respondents in the above property and private respondents (respondent nos. 5, 6 and 16 to 96) are directed to restore possession of vacant land of ECM High School to 3rd respondent within three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order – Petition is allowed. (Paras 96 to 102)
1. The Writ Petitioners, who are employed in the Emilie Coles Memorial High School for Girls (for short, ‘the School’) established by the American Baptist Foreign Missions Society at Kurnool, filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool in granting approval for a layout in Sy. Nos.123 (P), 125 (P), 126 (P) and 127 (P) forming part of the property of the above school on 27-02-2003 and the consequential action of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 22 to 96 in making constructions therein.
2. It is not in dispute that the said school was established in the year 1907 by the American Baptist Foreign Missions Society in Kurnool. According to the petitioners, the school is situated in a vast campus of Ac.10.31 cts, of which, Ac.4.00 cts was allotted to High school and Ac.3.00 cts was allotted to primary school towards play ground, and both schools were admitted to Grant-in-Aid during 1977-78 academic year.
THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS
3. Petitioners contend that as per Grant-in-Aid rules, the property of the schools was hypothecated to the Government for receiving Grant-in-Aid. They contend that in 1973, the American Baptist Church Private Limited transferred the management of the properties of the schools to the M/s. Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited, that a Society by name Kurnool Polumala Baptist Sangamula Samajam (9th respondent) raised a dispute over the control of the properties of the school and the said society sold various extents of the property belonging to the school from 1996 onwards, including Ac.3.65 cts forming part of the school play ground in the above survey numbers to respondent Nos.5 to 7. Petitioners contend that the purchasers applied to 1st respondent for sanction of layout for the above property; that there is a specific prohibition of Section 53 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) against alienation of any land belonging to an educational institution receiving the Grant-in-Aid from the State funds without permission of the State Government; the 2nd respondent had objected to the grant of layout by a letter dt.29-10-1996 addressed to 1st respondent; the 1st respondent has initially rejected an application for layout on 06-11-1998; but subsequently the 1st respondent conducted a general body meeting of 1st respondent and through a resolution dt. 27-02-2003, he granted approval for layout in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7.
4. Petitioners contend that basing on the approval granted by 1st respondent, respondent Nos.5 to 7 demolished part of the compound wall of the school, commenced construction therein and even though the staff of the school approached the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and asked them to stop the construction, no action was taken. They contend that the area which is sold to respondent Nos.5 to 7 is part of the play ground of the school and it could not have been sold without obtaining permission of the Government under Section 53 of the Act.
5. Petitioners also contend that in a judgment rendered on 17-01-2001 in O.S.No.348 of 1998 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, it was held that 9th respondent had no title to the property and any transactions entered into by 9th respondent with 3rd parties/respondents is null and void.
6. Petitioners also submitted a representation dt.21-02-2003 to the then Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, to the Hon’ble Minister for School Education, to the District Collector, Kurnool, 1st respondent, 2nd respondent and others opposing the grant of layout permission to the respondent Nos.5 to 7.
7. Petitioners also referred to W.P.No.1082 of 1999 filed by the Property Association of Baptist Church Private Limited, Podili against 1st respondent and others complaining of illegal constructions being made in the property belonging to the above school and of the inaction of 1st respondent in stopping such unauthorized construction and pointed out that the said Writ Petition
