The doctrine of proportionality and reasonableness applies to judicial review of administrative action, guiding the assessment of infringement and the proportionality of the official decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first Respondent dated 25.06.2005 in RC.U3.No. 15664/2002 and quash the same.)

1. An order dated 25.06.2005 of the District Collector, Nilgiris, to resume the lands that were assigned to the Petitioner is challenged in this writ petition.

2. The Petitioner is part of a global association founded on 06.06.1844 with its head quarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The Udhagamandalam (Ootacamund) chapter was established in June 1886. The object of the Association is to provide free education, maintain hospitals, counselling centres, libraries, playgrounds, etc. with a view to develop the human body, mind and soul. The then British Government issued a miscellaneous patta whereby lands ad-measuring an extent of about 1.73 acres in Survey No.1773 were assigned in favour of the Petitioner. For this purpose, G.O. No.623, Revenue Department, dated 15.02.1920, was issued. The assignment was subject to the condition that the lands shall be used for an institution, hostel and playground with secretary quarters and for no other purpose without the previous sanction of the local Government or of the Collector of the District.

3. Pursuant to the grant, it appears that the Association constructed a marriage hall, training centre, hostel facilities, games rooms, etc. in the year 1920. These buildings were periodically renovated and reconstructed. In the year 1984, special permission was obtained from the District Collector and the municipal authorities to build the Secretary’s Quarters. A portion of the aforesaid lands was uneven as it was on a slope. In order to make use of the said lands, the Petitioner requested for permission in 1999 to construct a community hall, library, gymnasium, book centre and hostels. Such permission was granted by proceedings dated 05.05.2000 of the District Collector. Subsequent thereto, once again, on 24.04.2003, the Petitioner applied for permission to build new buildings, including a commercial complex. Although the Petitioner claims that permission was granted, such claim is strongly refuted by Respondents 1 and 2 and there is no evidence on record that permission was granted. In any case, the Petitioner proceeded to construct a commercial complex with shops, which have been let out to tenants. It claims that the income from the commercial complex was used for the fulfillment of the objects and purposes of the Petitioner Association.

4. In these circumstances, the Petitioner received a show cause notice dated 09.03.2005 from the first Respondent stating that buildings were constructed by deviating from the sanctioned plan and that a commercial complex was constructed without permission inasmuch as permission was granted only to construct a library, community hall, gymnasium, etc. Therefore, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the land should not be resumed by the Government. Upon receipt of such show cause notice, the Petitioner issued a reply on 28.03.2005 pointing out that the Association constructed the shopping complex after obtaining the approval of the Government and the AAA Committee. It was also stated that the building was inspected by the local government authorities, and was assessed to property tax. Such property tax is being paid and the income is used only for the purpose of financing the social and charitable objects of the Petitioner Association. It was further pointed out that the Petitioner Association is providing employment to youth and is running schools where free education is provided. According to the Petitioner, in spite of receiving the aforesaid reply, the first Respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 25.06.2005 whereby the Respondents took the decision to resume the lands. The present writ petition was filed in these facts and circumstances.

5. I heard Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi, the learned counsel