MATHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOING by the pleadings in O. P. No. 3997 of 1979 H it is seen that there is a school called S.V.J.B.School, Meppayil, under the District educational Officer, Badagara. This school was started, again as is seen from the pleadings, in 1934. This is a lower primary school catering to the educational needs of the area where the school is situate. The Educational agency who was in management of the school was one Kunhiratna Panicker. The site on which the school building stands having an extent of 30 cents together with the adjoining land having an extent of 37 cents belonged to Kunhirama panicker and his nephew Manan Panicker. It appears that there was a suit for partitioning this property between the uncle and the nephew. As a result of the decision in the partition suit the 30 cents of land together with the school building thereon was allotted to Kunhirama Panicker, the Educational Agency. Such allotment presumably was on taking into account the fact that Kunhirama Panicker was the manager of the school and the proprietor Educational Agency. The remaining 37 cents lying to the north of the 30 cents mentioned above was allotted to Manan Panicker. He appears to have been residing in the house situate in the northern 37 cents of land.

(2.) KUNHIRAMA Panicker sold the 30 cents of land together with the school building to the petitioner in 1973. It is common case that kunhirama Panicker transferred the Educational Agency in favour of Manan panicker. The position therefore was that Manan Panicker was the Educational agency and the Manager of the S. V. J. B. school, Meppayil - but not the owner of either the, school building or the 30 cents of land where the school building is situate. It is submitted before me that Manan Panicker was paying rent to the petitioner for the school building.

(3.) THE petitioner approached this court even before Ext. P5 order was passed on 17-11-1979, that is to say, three days prior to the passing of Ext. P5 order. THE petitioner in the first instance prayed that Ext. P1 notification under S. 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act be quashed and that the first respondent be directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in Exts. P2 and P3 Ext. P3 is the still later objection preferred by the petitioner on 6-11-1979. THE petitioner also prayed in the first instance that the respondents be prohibited from pursuing Ext. P1 notice. THE O. P. was amended as per orders on C. M. P. No. 735 of 1980. By the amendment the petitioner seeks to have Ext. P5 order also quashed by a writ of certiorari. THE petitioner by the amendment also prayed that consequential declaration under S. 6 of the act, if any, be also quashed. It is common case now before me that the declaration under S. 6 has been published in the Gazette dated 11-12-79.