Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 753
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
The Society of St. Joseph’s College Tiruchy Represented by its Procurator Jesuit Residence St. Joseph’s College Campus
Versus
Union of India Represented by Chief Post Master General & Others
W.P. No.6187 of 2003
Decided On : 28-02-2007
For the Petitioner:M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel for M. Sriram, Advocate. For the Respondents:V.T. Gopalan, Additional Solicitor General of India for B. Ullasavelan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the unenforceability of a writ petition in the absence of a statutory right and the direction for legislative action to implement the Supreme Court's direction regarding the application of the Land Acquisition Act to minority educational institutions.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Minority Educational Institutions - 1860, 1894, 2002 - The judgment discusses the application of the Land Acquisition Act to minority educational institutions and the enforceability of a writ petition in the absence of a statutory right. It also addresses the interpretation of a judgment and the maintainability of a writ petition in the absence of a legislative enactment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minority educational institution, sought a writ of mandamus to hand over possession of premises occupied by the third respondent, where the Teppakulam Post Office is located. The petitioner had let out the building to the respondents in 1910, and the respondents stopped paying rent during land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner demanded vacant possession and damages for use and occupation, but the third respondent declined, claiming no landlord-tenant relationship due to intended future acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Land Acquisition Act was not applicable to minority educational institutions, and in the absence of a legislative enactment, the petitioner had no enforceable remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court directed the Union of India and the State to initiate steps to implement the Supreme Court's direction by amending the Land Acquisition Act or enacting suitable legislation. The parties were directed to maintain status quo until the legislative action was taken.
Issues: The issues involved the application of the Land Acquisition Act to minority educational institutions, the enforceability of a writ petition in the absence of a statutory right, and the interpretation of a judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or file a suit for ejectment in the absence of a legislative enactment. It directed the Union of India and the State to implement the Supreme Court's direction by amending the Land Acquisition Act or enacting suitable legislation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the Union of India and the State were directed to initiate steps to implement the Supreme Court's direction by bringing in an amendment to the Land Acquisition Act or enacting suitable legislation. The parties were directed to maintain status quo until the legislative action was taken.
The Society of St. Josephs College, Tiruchy has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to handover vacant possession of the premises in possession of the third respondent where Teppakulam Post Office is being situated, to the College.
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the petitioners affidavit, are as under:
a. The petitioner is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an autonomous institution created under and administered by Religious Minority and the college run by the petitioner was established in the year 1844, and it caters to nearly 5000 students in a year. The college receives grants from the Government in respect of salary for teaching and non-teaching staff and the rest of the expenditure is met by the College and no fee is collected from the students.
b. The petitioner has let out a number of buildings to commercial purposes and one such building was let out to the respondents in 1910 for a monthly rent of Rs.830/-wherein the third respondent Teppakulam Post Office is located. In 1974, when revision of rent was sought by the petitioner, the same was not complied with by the respondents and on the contrary, they started proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the entire land along with building. Accordingly, Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and declaration under Section 6 of the same Act were made on 011. 1979 and 17.02.1982 respectively and the petitioner challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.5552 of 1982 and the same was dismissed on 18.04.1984. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order in the writ petition was also dismissed. During the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of Rs.1,56,377/-on 06.04.1984. As against the order of dismissal of the writ appeal, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and further moved a Writ Petition in W.P. (Civil) No.42 of 1985 before the Supreme Court to enforce its fundamental right as a Minority educational institution. The Supreme Court, disposed of the writ petition as well as the Civil Appeal filed against the writ appeal order, holding that the provisions of the Central Act I/1894 may not be invoked in respect of educational institutions run and administered by Minority and enabled the Union of India to safeguard its position, if any special enactment or amendment to the Central Act is to be made to cover such situation. It further held that pending and uncompleted acquisitions would stand lapsed on and after 31.05.2002. The I.A. filed by Union of India for extension of upper limit of 31.05.2002 was dismissed on 21.08.2002 and as such, the proceedings in respect of the petitioners property lapsed on 31.05.2002.
c. Even though the third respondent had deposited the award amount under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner did not make any claim and receive the compensation since the award was not properly conducted. In reply to the petitioner’s notice dated 211. 2002 demanding vacant possession and damages for use and occupation from 01.04.1984, the third respondent vide his reply dated 112. 2002, categorically reiterated that there is no landlord-tenant relationship and declined to comply with the demand on the ground of intended future acquisition of the very same property. Hence, the third respondent is a rank trespasser and is to be evicted from the premises.
3. On the other hand, the second respondent has filed counter on behalf of other respondents as well and his case is as follows:
a. The rent for the entire premises occupied by the third respondent in 1893 was raised from time to time and on 26.04.1984, when the premises was handed over to the third respondent by the State Government, the rent paid by the third respondent was Rs.830/- per month and sums of Rs.1,56,377/- and Rs.1,00,625.20 were paid to the
