PUNNAYURKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Grama Panchayat is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 14928 of 2005. According to them, the third respondent--Musthafa Kamal, acting in defiance, was going on with construction activities in the land appurtenant to G.M.L.P. School, Punnayurkulam, which was in the management of the Grama Panchayat. Under Section 235 X of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the police had a duty to come and help them for enforcing their orders. It is submitted that on 10-05-2005 the Headmistress of the school had addressed the Secretary of the Panchayat about the issue, as could be seen from Ext.P1. Immediately thereon, by Ext.P2, the third respondent had been issued with a stop memo by the Panchayat and they had simultaneously addressed the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkekad. Reference is also made to the letter received from the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad requiring the Panchayat to take immediate steps for stoppage of the unauthorised building activities in the school compound. By Ext.P5, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chavakkad had been addressed on 16-5-2005, and shortly thereafter the writ petition had been filed.

(2.) First and second respondents are Police Officers and they are represented by the Government Pleader. Mr. T. Krishnanunni appeared on behalf of the third respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on two grounds, the reliefs prayed for were liable to be granted. Under Section 5A of the Kerala Education Act (for short, the Act) brought into force from 12-05-2000, the management of the school was to vest in the Village Panchayat. Under Section 5B of the Act, no alienation of land appurtenant to a Government school, vested with a local authority under Section 5A, was to be made and such land was not to be used for any purpose other than educational purposes. Therefore, construction of a residential house in the compound of the school was impermissible. Definition of the term "school" in the Act was an inclusive definition of the land, buildings, play grounds and movable properties came within the definition. Although the school was situated on about five cents of land, the balance properties were used for parade purpose, school meetings and as playground. Restriction, which was liable to be brought by a construction of a residential house, was therefore objectionable. It was also submitted that under Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, previous permission of the Panchayat ought to have been obtained before a property owner to embark on a construction project and as no permission had been granted for the construction, it was objectionable. The Panchayat authorities have to prohibit such construction and were entitled to get police assistance for enforcement of the orders. Counsel had also relied on a decision of this Court in 2002 (2) KLT 502 (Gopalakrishnan v. The Secretary, Corporation of Kollam), holding that in view of Section 5B the premises of the school was not to be used for any purpose other than educational purposes. The third respondent was to be interdicted from carrying on any construction activities, and in ease of violation, police help was to be afforded.