The court upheld the Government's decision to acquire land for public purpose, ruling that the property was not a school playground and that the refusal to exempt it did not violate constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

The first petitioner, a charitable Trust, and the second petitioner, one of its Trustees, have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Government’s rejection of the request for exemption of their property from acquisition.

2. The 1^st petitioner Trust is running a school, namely, Bishop Pereira Memorial School at Karmoodu in Thiruvananthapuram District having standards up to twelfth. The school is in existence for over 34 years in a rural, agricultural area, primarily serving students from middle and lower-middle-class backgrounds. It offers free education to economically weaker students and has over 9,000 students. The school campus comprises of 3.79 acres of land in Re-Sy. Nos.19/5-1, 19/5-2 and 19/5-3 of Andoorkonam village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The 2^nd petitioner, who is one of the Trustees, has leased out the aforesaid 3.79 acres of land to the Trust for running the school for a period of 35 years. Another extent of 80 cents of land in Re-Sy. No.19/2 and 20 cents in Re-Sy. No.19/2-1 of Andoorkonam village are also in the possession and enjoyment of the Trust for the school. The Trust is in absolute possession of the aforesaid properties which are garden lands lying contiguously. The school campus consists of school buildings, office, play ground, but the existing infrastructure is insufficient to meet the growing demand for admissions. Due to space constraints and lack of additional infrastructure facilities, the school is not able to cater to the needs of the locality fully. The petitioners state that they plan to expand the infrastructure by constructing additional buildings, a swimming pool, a play ground, an indoor stadium, and other facilities, and the immediate priority of the school is to have a full fledged play ground with various facilities.

3. While so, the Government, the 1^st respondent, issued Ext. P1 order dated 19.12.2005 granting administrative sanction to acquire an extent of 732 acres of land in various survey numbers in Pallipuram, Vailoor, Melthonnakkal and Andoorkkonam villages of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk for the creation of infrastructure for the proposed Technocity as Phase IV development of Technopark invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A Act, for short). A portion of the land where the school campus is situated was also included in Ext. P1. On coming to know of the proposed acquisition, the 1^st petitioner submitted Ext. P2 representation to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, stating that the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 19/2, 19/5, and 19/6 of Andoorkonam Village belongs to the petitioner Trust where the aforesaid school is run by the Trust and requested that the said land be exempted from acquisition.

4. Later, the 1^st respondent issued Ext. P3 order dated 21.02.2006 by which administrative sanction was accorded for acquisition of 507 acres of land for setting up the Technocity as Phase IV development of Technopark invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the L.A Act. Ext. P3 also covered a portion of the school campus. Later, the Government issued Ext. P4 Notification dated 04.10.2006 under Section 4(1) of the L.A Act proposing to acquire an extent of 507 acres of land in Pallipuram, Vailoor, Melthonnakkal and Andoorkkonam villages in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The property of the school is also included in the notification.

5. The petitioners state that, after more than one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), the 2^nd respondent, the Commissioner of Land Revenue issued Ext. P5 dated 03.12.2007 under Section 6(1) of the L.A Act declaring that the lands covered by the notification are required for a public purpose, namely, for establishment of Technocity near Pallipuram. The petitioners further state that since no notice was issued to them and the application for exemption was pending with the District Collector, they did not take any further steps.

6. Thereafter, the 6^th respondent, t