STATE OF MADRAS Vs. MAHATMAJI MANAVAR UNAVU VIDUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Mahatmaji Manavar Unavu Viduthi", the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 1967 was originally run under the private management of one K.K. Velusamy Udayar. In course of time, the institution expanded and consequent upon the institution's desire not to run with the then provision by the Government at Rs. 15 per mensem, it requested the Government in the year 1954 for the grant of Government land so that they could put up a decent building thereon for the purpose of running a hostel for the depressed classes. Then the management was asked to register the society under the Societies Registration Act so that they could avail themselves of the public grants which the Government would make in such circumstances. Accordingly, on 12th March, 1955, the plaintiff -society was registered and Mr. K.K. Velusamy Udayar was elected as the Secretary and Manager of that society. After registration, the society pursued its request for the grant of land and also for a loan to put up a decent building thereon and on 28th July, 1956, under Exhibit A -2, 39 cents of land was assigned or to use the normal expression used in such circumstances was "alienated" in favour of the society for the avowed purpose of putting up a construction thereon and for running a hostel. On 21st September, 1956, a provision was made by the Government whereunder a grant of Rs. 10,800 was made. This Rs. 10,800 consisted of the grant made up of a sum of Rs. 6,000 granted by the State Government and the balance of Rs. 4,800 by the Central Government. The society also made its contribution in the shape of labour etc. in putting up a decent structure. Some time thereafter, some additional buildings were put up again with the aid of the Government grant. Some years thereafter to wit in 1959 there were certain reports against the normal working of the hostel. We are not, however, concerned in this case with the complaints laid against the management of the hostel as ultimately it happened that the Government resumed the land and took possession of the buildings thereon, the former under the express power vested in them in Clause 8 of the terms of the grant, Exhibit A -2 and the latter, as by then, became affixed to the land and formed part and parcel of the same. The Government, in or about July, 1959, laid down a policy to cover all subsidised hostels in the State by stages and for that purpose under G.O. Ms. No. 2312, Department of Industries, Labour and Co -operation, issued a notification to that effect and directed that 3 hostels in Madurai District recognised for grant of residential scholarships and detailed in items 21 to 23 of the Annexure to the above Government Order be taken over and run by Government during 1959 -60. The Director of Harijan Welfare was requested to draw up a phased programme to take over all the remaining subsidised hostels within a specified period and submit the programme for the approval of the Government. The twentieth listed hostel in the annexure to the above Government Order is the plaintiff -society. Pursuant to this, the society was informed under Exhibit B -10 dated 9th June, 1959 that the management of the hostel would be taken over under the control of the Government shortly and that orders for taking over of the hostel would be issued separately. This was followed by Exhibit B -15 dated 13th June, 1959, which was the proceedings issued by the Collector of Tiruchirapalli. In this order, Exhibit B -15, the Collector refers to the general orders issued by the Government to resume Mahatmaji Manavar Unavu Viduthi (subsidised hostel) at Turajyur and demanded that the management should surrender possession of the buildings. But, unfortunately, the rule under which the power of requisition was being adopted was mot mentioned in the above proceedings. Ultimately, it happened that the Deputy Tahsildar took charge of the hostel, on 16th Jane, 1959, from the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said actions which according to the plaintiff are neither proper nor legal, the plaintiff filed a suit in forma pauperis seeking for restoration of the building to the plaintiff -society. As no malpractices have been alleged against the society and as one of the buildings taken over by the Government from the society was constructed at the cost of Rs. 13,646. 68 P., the action of the Government in taking over the entire buildings including that constructed by the plaintiff without even an offer for compensation and without paying any compensation till the plaintiff -society came to Court, is highly inequitable besides being illegal. It was in those circumstances that the suit was filed. The Government in its written statement has taken up the position that the suit is not maintainable, that the hostel was taken over by the Government in public interest and for running the hostel departmentally and that in exercise of their powers under condition 8 of Exhibit A -2, the property was taken over and the land, where the buildings were constructed, is Government land alienated for a specific purpose and that the Government could acquire the same if they required it for a public purpose. The defendant would allege that the hostel was taken over only for a public purpose as the plaintiff could not run the hostel efficiently and in accordance with the avowed policy of the Government to take over such subsidised hostels and run the same for the benefit of the depressed classes to their advantage. They would refer to the hostel and the grant and would say that the Government also did contribute a major portion towards the construction of the buildings and as those buildings and that put up by the plaintiff did form one integral part, the Government had to take over the entire property after giving a prior notice to the hostel authorities. They would refute the claim of the plaintiff that it is entitled to recover possession of the lands and the properties taken over by the Government.

(2.) AT this stage, we may refer to the relief asked by the plaintiff in the plaint. He only sought for redelivery of possession of the suit properties against the defendant and did not ask for a relief in the alternative for payment of such just compensation for the properties belonging to the society which were taken over by the Government without even offering compensation therefore .

(3.) THE main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Government acted properly and in accordance with law when it took over the plaintiff's buildings and the hostel pursuant to the accredited policy of its to take over the hostels in the State to run it departmentally and on better and sound measures. For this purpose, it is necessary to go into the question of the terms of the grant by which the society was given possession of government land of the extent of 39 cents. It is not in dispute that this alienation was under the State Grants Act. One of the conditions of alienation which is relevant for the purpose may be extracted: