Ownership claim through a Will outweighs management transfer denials based on land status.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P9, P11 and P12 orders issued by the respondents refusing to approve the change of management with reference to the ownership of T.K.M.M.U.P.

School, Edakadathy, Kanjirappally.

2. Heard Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Shylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. This Court notices that the school in question was under the management of one K.K. Madhavan, who had executed a Will (Ext.P6), under which the petitioner claims ownership and possession of the school as well as the property in question. On the basis of the Will and upon the death of the aforementioned K.K. Madhavan, the petitioner submitted an application under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, seeking a change of management of the school in question.

4. By the proceedings at Ext.P9, the 2^nd respondent herein refused to carry out the transfer sought for by the petitioner, solely for the reason that the school was stated to be situated in a puramboke land. The petitioner, though, sought for review of the aforesaid finding by Ext.P11, the 2^nd respondent refused to accept the prayer for review. The further revision to the Government also was unsuccessful, as evidenced by Ext.P12.

5. This Court specifically takes note of the contention raised that the school in question was originally under the possession and ownership of the aforesaid K.K. Madhavan, and that subsequent to his death, on the basis of the Will, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the school. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the school was being operated on the same 59.20 Ares of property, which is now stated to be puramboke land. For that reason alone, the prayer made by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected, especially when it is admitted by all that the same school was being managed by K.K. Madhavan.

6. This Court further takes note of the fact that, even from the counter affidavit filed, a decision has already been taken by the Government to assign the property in question to the petitioner herein.

7. Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly points out that the property has not, till date, been assigned, and the proceedings are still pending before the competent authorities.

8. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed, and accordingly, the writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Exts. P9, P11, and P12 issued by the respective respondents.

There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and effect the transfer of ownership of the school as sought by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-