Kerala High Court
*Sulaiman M.S vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 1 2025:KER:62727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 544 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2010 IN WPC NO.24031
OF 2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SULAIMAN M.S.
S/O.MOHAMMAD SALI
AGED 62, BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPANCHERI ROAD,
IRUMPANAM (DIED)
2 ABIDA BEEGOM
W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED
154, JAVAHAR NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA,
KOCHI-20.
3 ANNIE EAPEN
W/O.V.G.EAPEN
279, GIRI NAGAR,
KOCHI-20.
4 KUNJAITHY KOCHUPAUL
W/O.KOCHUPAUL
141, GIRINAGAR,
KADAVANTHARA,
KOCHI-20.
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 2 2025:KER:62727
*5 KHAIRNIZA
W/O.LATE M.S.SULAIMAN,
BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPENCHERRY ROAD,
IRIMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682309
*6 BIJU SULAIMAN
S/O.LATE M.S.SULAIMAN,
BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPENCHERRY ROAD,
IRIMPANAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682309
*7 BINOY SULAIMAN
S/O.LATE M.S.SULAIMAN,
BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPENCHERRY ROAD,
IRIMPANAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682309.
(ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS A5, A6 AND A7 ARE IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 05.10.2010 IN IA 638/2010.)
BY ADV SHRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM.
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
GENERAL,
ERNAKULAM.
4 LAND REVENUE COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 3 2025:KER:62727
5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD ROADS DIVISION,
ERNAKULAM.
6 N.RAMACHANDRAN,
MANAGER,
SREE VENKATESWARA ENGLISH
MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL,
TRIPUNITHURA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SHRI.N.ANILKUMAR
SRI.S.RANJITH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.08.2025, ALONG WITH OP(C)NO.1802/2011, THE COURT ON
21.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 4 2025:KER:62727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2011 IN LAR NO.14 OF 2010
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS :
1 ABIDA BEEGAM
W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED
154, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA,
KOCHI-20.
2 MRS.KUNJATHY KOCHU PAUL
W/O.KOCHU PAUL,
141, GIRINAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA,
KOCHI-20.
3 ANNIE EAPEN
W/O.V.G.EAPEN
279, GIRINAGAR,
KOCHI-20.
4 KHAIRNIZA
W/O.LATE SULAIMAN
BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPANCHERY ROAD,
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 5 2025:KER:62727
IRUMPANAM,
ERNAKULAM.
5 BIJU SULAIMAN
S/O.LATE SULAIMAN
BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPANCHERY ROAD,
IRUMPANAM,
ERNAKULAM.
6 BINOY SULAIMAN
S/O.LATE SULAIMAN
BIJU NIVAS,
KAIPANCHERY ROAD,
IRUMPANAM,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT :
THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)
GENERAL,
ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-30.
SRI.S.RANJITH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.08.2025, ALONG WITH WA.544/2010, THE COURT ON 21.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 6 2025:KER:62727
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2025
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This is a peculiar case where the State has adopted
an ingenious method to acquire the land owned by the
appellants by invoking the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as " the 1894 Act").
2. The State projected a need to widen the access to
the bridge by acquiring the land belonging to a school
claimed to be run by a linguistic minority. The institution in
question is Sree Venkateswara English Medium School,
Thripunithura, managed by Thulu Brahmana Yogam, a
linguistic minority community in Kerala. The notification
issued by the State, dated 09.06.2006, was challenged
before this Court by the school authority in W.P.(C). No.
18503 of 2006. The challenge primarily centred on Article
30(1A) of the Constitution of India.
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 7 2025:KER:62727
3. Clause 1(A) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India
reads as follows:
"30(1A). In making any law providing for the
compulsory acquisition of any property of an
educational institution established and
administered by a minority, referred to in
clause (1), the State shall ensure that the
amount fixed by or determined under such
law for the acquisition of such property is
such as would not restrict or abrogate the
right guaranteed under that clause."
This clause was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, with effect from 20.06.1979.
4. In Society of St. Joseph's College v. Union of
India [(2002) 1 SCC 273], the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India mandates that
a specific law is required to provide for the compulsory
acquisition of property belonging to minority educational
institutions, and without making a specific law, the State
cannot acquire the property of such institutions.
5. Faced with such a situation, and in the absence of
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 8 2025:KER:62727
any specific law enabling the acquisition of property
belonging to a minority educational institution, it would not
have been possible for the State to acquire the land of Sree
Venkateswara English Medium School, Thripunithura.
Consequently, in the writ petition, a compromise was arrived
at between the school authority and the State. Pursuant to
an understanding, a statement was filed before this Court. As
per the terms of the compromise, in lieu of land from the
school authority, they will be compensated by handing over
the land belonging to the adjacent owners through the
acquisition. The adjacent owners are the appellants herein.
Acting on the compromise, this Court disposed of the writ
petition filed by the school authority, recording the terms of
the compromise. It appears that the bridge was widened and
constructed by using the land of the school, and in order to
compensate for the land so acquired, a notification dated
19.05.2007 was issued to acquire the land belonging to the
appellants herein, who are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C).No.
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 9 2025:KER:62727
24031/2008.
6. In this writ petition, the very claim of minority
status by the school authority was questioned, and the
appellants contended that the acquisition was a colourable
exercise of power. The learned Single Judge, who heard the
matter, dismissed the challenge. On dismissal, an award
bearing no. 1/10 was passed on 22.03.2010. In the reference
under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the appellants did not
participate, and the Reference Court answered the reference,
holding that the appellants were not entitled to enhanced
compensation. This issue was separately raised in O.P.(C).
No. 1802/2011 before this Court. Accordingly, both the
appeal and the original petition challenging the award have
been tagged together for hearing. We, therefore, deem it
appropriate to dispose of both matters by this common
judgment.
7. The public purpose is defined under section 3(f) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It reads as follows:
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 10 2025:KER:62727
"3(f). the expression "public purpose" includes-
(i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension,
planned development or improvement of existing
village-sites;
(ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning;
(iii) the provision of land for planned development
of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme
or policy of Government and subsequent disposal
thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or
outright sale with the object of securing further
development as planned;
(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or
controlled by the State;
(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to
the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas
affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced
or affected by reason of the implementation of any
scheme undertaken by Government, any local
authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the
State;
(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any
educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme
sponsored by Government or by any authority
established by Government for carrying out any such
scheme, or with the prior approval of the appropriate
Government, by a local authority, or a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 11 2025:KER:62727
time being in force in a state, or a co-operative society
within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative
societies for the time being in force in any State;
(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of
development sponsored by Government or with the
prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a
local authority;
(viii) the provision of any premises or building for
locating a public office, but does not include acquisition
of land for companies;"
8. It is specifically referred to in Clause vi of Section
3(f) of the 1894 Act that land can be acquired for educational
purposes by schemes carried out or established by the
Government. Therefore, the scope of land acquisition for
educational institutions is limited. Further, Clause viii of
Section 3(f) of the 1894 Act states that the acquisition of
land for companies does not fall within the definition of
"public purpose". Part VII of the 1894 Act, deals with the
acquisition of land for companies, and such acquisition is
permissible only for the limited purposes enumerated in
Section 40(1) of the 1894 Act. Therefore, it is evident that of
the 1894 Act, intended to give a limited meaning to the
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 12 2025:KER:62727
public purposes. No doubt, sometimes public purpose may
not necessarily be confined to the needs of the State.
However, in such cases, the plurality of interests of the
larger public must be reflected in the object of the
acquisition.
9. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in
Gopakumar V.M. v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 361],
opined that the need to provide more space for a temple and
also parking space in relation thereto would fall within the
ambit of public purpose.
10. We cannot, however, gloss over the facts and
circumstances of this case while determining whether the
acquisition was for a public purpose or not. The entire hurdle
for the State was its failure to address the mandate under
Article 30(1A) of the Constitution. In order to overcome this
constitutional restriction, a compromise was entered into with
the school on the promise that the land of adjacent holders
would be acquired to compensate for the loss suffered by the
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 13 2025:KER:62727
school. This is a private arrangement and a private contract.
Such an agreement cannot have any backing of law, and to
elevate the status of a contract entered into by the State in
exercise of its executive or sovereign power. It rather reflects
a deceitful means adopted by the State to get over the
constitutional embargo. When the matter is examined from
that backdrop, the acquisition of land is, in fact, based on the
promise arrived at in a settlement rather than upholding any
public purpose related to the school. The school can still
function, and it will not affect the functioning of the school
even after the acquisition of land from the school authority.
No doubt, the acquired land may be required by the school as
a playground or for any other purpose. Be that as it may,
since it is a private school, there is no public purpose element
in light of the restricted meaning assigned to public purpose
under the Land Acquisition Act. Even for a company, the
public purpose has been defined in a more restricted way. In
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 14 2025:KER:62727
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"), the applicability
of the Act has been excluded even for private educational
institutions and private hotels. Anyway, we are certain that
this acquisition is a dubious attempt to wriggle out the
constitutional embargo rather than acknowledging any other
elements constituting public purpose under the law.
11. Thus, we hold that the entire land acquisition
proceedings have to be set aside, including the notification
under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. However, the learned
counsel for the appellants fairly admitted that the possession
of the land has already been taken over, and now it is with
the school authority. The learned counsel for the appellants
conceded that the appellants only require compensation
calculated in accordance with the 2013 Act, and on payment
of compensation, they shall execute the necessary
documents in favour of any person or authority nominated by
the Government.
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 15 2025:KER:62727
12. In the peculiar circumstances, we direct the
Collector to calculate the compensation in accordance with
the 2013 Act and on payment or deposit of the amount, the
appellants shall execute a conveyance deed, on meeting the
entire expenses by the State, in favour of the Government or
its nominee.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. In the
above circumstances, the impugned award in O.P.(C)No.
1802 of 2011 is set aside.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
rkj
WA NO.544 OF 2010 &
OP(C) NO. 1802 OF 2011 16 2025:KER:62727
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1802/2011
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2011
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COP OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION
FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY
THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
