Recently, the Kerala High Court held that authorities cannot deny rent or compensation for buildings and medical equipment taken over during a public health emergency on the ground of alleged unauthorised construction. The Court made this observation while dealing with a petition filed by an educational agency that had surrendered its medical college and hospital facilities for COVID-19 treatment under government directions. The Court noted that refusing compensation violates the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 300A.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, an educational agency managing a medical and dental college, was directed by authorities during the COVID-19 outbreak to hand over its hospital, hostel, and medical facilities for pandemic response. Complying with orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, the petitioner surrendered possession and provided full cooperation, including repair and maintenance support as directed.
Following the end of the emergency, the government returned the facility. However, no compensation was paid for the usage of the building or the medical equipment. The petitioner claimed a significant financial loss and sought redressal, but the authorities rejected their claim stating that the construction was unauthorised.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent resisted the claim, asserting that the building in question, particularly a hostel block, was constructed in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. It was contended that rent cannot be granted for unauthorised constructions. They also claimed that the medical equipment remained in working condition and was returned without damage, hence no compensation was due. Further, the District Collector held there was “no provision” under the current framework to compensate for medical equipment usage.
Observations of the Court:
The Court took strong exception to the reasoning adopted by the authorities. Referring to the District Collector’s order that denied compensation citing alleged unauthorised construction, the Court stated, “Assuming that the building requires certain statutory clearances, even then the respondents who have taken over the building and used the same invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 cannot decline rent/compensation holding that the building construction was unauthorised.” The Court underscored that the petitioner had obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Grama Panchayat and a construction completion certificate from the second respondent. Taxes were also regularly collected by the local body.
With respect to the refusal to pay for the use of medical equipment, the Court stated, “The reasoning given by the District Collector is highly arbitrary and unacceptable. If the respondents have taken over the medical equipment, then they are bound to pay rent/compensation.”
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s right to compensation is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property. The state cannot deprive a person of property without the authority of law or without compensating for its use.
The decision of the Court:
The Court set aside the impugned order (Ext.P23) issued by the District Collector, terming it “highly arbitrary and unsustainable". It remitted the matter back to the concerned authorities for fresh consideration and directed that a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s claim for rent and compensation be made within three months.
Case Title: SR Educational & Charitable Trust vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 6653 of 2023
Coram: Justice N. Nagaresh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. P.M. Saneer, Tony George Kannanthanam, Nithya R.
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Rajeev Jyothish George
Picture Source :
