Sale of school land for commercial purposes violates the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regularization) Act, necessitating a detailed investigation into compliance and potential misconduct.

C O M M O N O R D E R

(By the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.13472 of 2020 has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to demolish the construction made by the respondents 8 to12 inside and in and around of the school campus and restore the Singaram Pillai Higher Secondary School property. In W.P.No.15930 of 2020, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to take appropriate action against the 8th respondent on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2020 and 07.09.2020 and restore the immovable properties of the Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School, situate in S.No.294/3A1B (Part) and 294/4 (Part) in T.S.No.34 in Block No.3 of Villivakkam Village as originally existed.

Facts put forth by the petitioner in W.P.No.15930 of 2020:

2. The property in question was assigned in the name of one Saraswathi Pandurangan, a Political Sufferer and a Patta was granted on 18.09.1950. The said Saraswathi Pandurangan had executed a sale deed in favour of the Singaram Pillai School Society, Konnur, Villivakkam;

2.1. The petitioner S.Sivasubramani is an old student and a Practising Lawyer in the Madras High Court. According to him, the school is surrounded by 14 grounds and a portion of the right side of the said school was purchased by a private car dealer and the entire half of the portion of left side was purchased by Dr.Mohan Reddy, pursuant to which, he had installed a board and started demolishing the school and constructing 24 class rooms in the remote corner of the school;

2.2. The four portions of ground was sold by the school for an amount of several crores, which is evident that the school is being operated in a commercial motive. Since a school is situated in the property, they cannot have any right to sell thte property to third parties. Hence, he has filed the Writ Petition, seeking for a direction afore stated.

3. The 6th respondent in W.P.No.13472 of 2020, namely, Joint Director of School Education, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been inter alia stated as follows:

3.1. The School, namely, Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School, is a Government aided school and the Collector of Chengalpattu alloted a land of 12.50 grounds (70 cents) vide D.Dis.No.16529/50 on 01.09.1950 to Saraswathi Pandurangan and subsequently, she had executed a sale deed in favour of the Singaram Pillai School Society, Konnur, Villivakkam;

3.2. The school is a society registered under the Act XXI of 1860 for the charitable purpose and the school was allotted 40 cents of land by the Government in S.No.249/4, New S.No.34, Block No.3 and thus, the school has a total extent of 109 cents. Based on the request made by the school management dated 28.02.2018, the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, vide proceedings dated 22.07.2018 in R.C.No.5807/A2/2018 permitted to sell 50 cents of lands, which the school management claimed to be excess and not used for school purposes, subject to the following conditions:

“i) The amount received by selling the land should be deposited in the bank account of the school.

ii) The said amount should be utilized for the purpose of renovating old buildings and to build new building for the school further the sale amount should be spent only for the academic welfare of the students and at any cost it shall not be used for commercial purpose.

iii) If the sale amount is utilized other than the purposes mentioned above this permission will automatically stand cancelled.

iv) It is further instructed that the rules and regulations of the School Education Department in this regard shall be strictly adhered to and in case of any deviation suitable actions, will be taken against the management, according to the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regularization)

Act, 1973 and the rules 1974.

v) It is further submitted that in view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the 7th respondent school management was permitted