JAYARANJAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard senior counsel Sri. Kylasanatha Pillai appearing for the review petitioners, standing counsel appearing for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and Government Pleader. The challenge in the OP was against acquisition of land for the purpose of CBSE School run by a society which is under the control of the Guruvayur Devaswom. This Court held that the School which is started more than 10 years back had a strength of above 1500 students and land was authorised to be acquired with the approval of the Government, because school did not have required extent of land in terms of CBSE norms. The main contention of the petitioners in the OP was that Devaswom had no authority to spend it's funds for educational purpose. This was considered in detail by this Court in the judgment and by referring to S.27(f) this Court held that education referred to therein includes general education and not just religious education. It was specifically noticed that petitioners or anyone else have at any time before questioned the authority of the Trust and application of Devaswom funds for establishment and maintenance of CBSE school which was started more than 10 years back. This Review Petition is now filed by relying on the second proviso to S.27(f) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act which provides that no expenditure shall be incurred for any of the purposes mentioned in clauses (f) and (g) unless the same is sanctioned by custom or practice associated with the temple. We do not know how custom or practice associated with the temple is relatable to educational activities. All what is visualised in the proviso is that education to be promoted by the Devaswom should not be against religion or Hindu belief. In other words, so long as education is not in conflict with religion, custom and practice, education can be promoted by the Devaswom. In fact education promotes tolerance, and for better understanding of religion and faith, education should be encouraged. Therefore we are of the view that promotion of general education advances the cause of religion and all faiths and it's rationalisation. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, since acquisition was held up for long on account of litigation and stay was granted by this Court, certainly petitioners will be entitled to claim compensation at market price prevalent at the time of dispossession.