Samanuru Venkata Rama Raju and Others vs Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—Both the writ petitions seek a common relief. The dispute relates to the location and construction of a primary school building to cater to the needs of the students. I find that most of the students are from downtrodden classes. In the village Balijepalli, Rajupalem Mandalam of Guntur District where the dispute arose with regard to the location and construction of a primary school building, the population seems to be around 3500 people. Already there is one primary school building and that is in Ward No. 1. That is a permanent building. As another primary school was needed, another building in Ward No. 2 was taken on rent. Proposals were made to construct a permanent building instead of the said rental building and to shift the school from the said rental building. Now, we are concerned only with the second school which is located in the rental building and which was proposed to be shifted to a permanent building after its construction.

A site was chosen for constructing a permanent building for the second primary school mentioned above and these two writ petitions challenge the said choice. It is alleged that the second respondent, for political reasons, has chosen the site which is not at all suitable and in fact, it is not desirable to locate the school at that site for several reasons. It is needless to mention that primary school imparts education only to children of tender years. It needs healthy surroundings and location. Firstly a report was called for by this Court from the Collector. But, the Collector did not give any adverse report with regard to the site chosen by the second respondent. In the counter also, the same stand was taken. When a dispute was raised with regard to the correctness of the counter filed by the respondents and the report sent by the Collector, this Court has appointed advocate-commissioner. The advocate-commissioner had inspected the site and reported that:

(1) A Vagu is situated at the distance of 45 metres from the disputed site.

(2) In the case of floods, the disputed site will get inundated.

(3) The disputed site is just at a distance of 162 metres from the existing primary school in Ward No. 1.

(4) There is a Digudubavi opposite this disputed site and ceremonies relating to dead souls will be performed at the Digudubavi and the villagers treat the same as inauspicious.

(5) There is a cremation ground on the other side of the Vagu.

(6) There is every chance of the school children getting into the well which is situated opposite the disputed site endangering the safety of the children.

(7) A narrow road passes through the disputed site and buses ply on the said narrow road which also may endanger the lives of the children if the school is constructed in the disputed site.

(8) The vacant sites behind and opposite to Siva temple are available for the location of a new school and these are very convenient and safe for the construction of the second primary school.

Though the report was submitted by the advocate-commissioner on 4-11-1991, no objections have been filed by the respondents 1 to 4. Of course, objections have been filed by the 5th respondent who got himself impleaded. Fifth respondent has got no locus to plead on behalf of other respondents and, in fact, he himself has got no locus as he is only a contractor appointed to execute the work of construction of the school building. He has got no choice with regard to the location of the school. May be, that the authorities have appointed him as the contractor to execute the work. But, if the site is not approved, then he has got no right to say that he will continue to construct the same and thrust on the villagers. At the best, his right is to have compensation in case the site is disapproved. In fact, I find from the records that notice was given by the advocate-commissioner to the counsel appearing for the respondents herein.

From the material on record and particularly that of the advocatecommissioner''s report, it is evident that the disputed site is nearer to a Vagu and that there is a cremation ground on the other side of the Vagu and a well where death ceremonies are performed and that the road passing through the disputed site is a narrow one on which the vehicles including that of buses ply.

Now the primary education is treated as a fudnamental right by the Supreme Court and that is the law of the land. If that be so, a site for school building has got to be acquired. The authorities are ready to construct a building. So far, there is no difficulty. But the dispute is with regard to the site on which the school building is to be constructed on the ground of its unsuitability. Then, it is ununderstandable as to how it can be thrust on the villagers who are the real beneficiaries. A political person like the second respondent or other officials like respondents 1,3 and 4 cannot outweigh the opinion of the villagers. In fact, it is sad that the politics have crept into an issue even with regard to location of a primary school building. Politics should not have any role to play in so far as, at least, this aspect is concerned. Primary education being a fundamental right, it is irrespective of any political faction, caste, creed, religion or race. The said fundamental right is traced to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The basis on which the same is held to be a fundamental right is that the fundamental right to life does not mean an animal existence, but a human existence with dignity. While the affluent have got opportunity to study elsewhere in good schools with all amenities, the poor and rural children can only arford to study in the schools like the instant one. But, for that reason, they cannot be treated as chattel forcing them to study at a place which is totally unsuitable. Further, the school is to be built by public funds and by a public authority and while performing the obligation to meet the fundamental right, the public authority cannot act arbitrarily choosing any site of the choice of a political leader or an officer which does not conform to the standards of human decency and dignity. The location of a school building should be at a place where the atmosphere is good including its surroundings. I fail to understand as to why a primary school should be located neatr the graveyard which scene is dreadful to the tender hearts. Further, the existence of Vagu, well and a narrow road will be hazardous to the safety and the lives of the young children. Above all, there are two sites which are available in serene surroundings. Petitioners 34 and 112 offered their land free of cost which is behind Siva temple in Ward No. 2 and one Mr. Jampana Seshaiah offered to donate Acs.0-12 cents of land opposite Siva temple in Ward No. 2. If needed, the adjoining lands to the above two sites are also available as the owners thereof had agreed to donate the same, should the situation arise. Taking an overall view, I find it desirable that the second primary school building shall not be constructed in the disputed site as chosen by the respondents and the same shall not proceed any further. Instead, the second primary school building shall be constructed in the site which has been donated by the petitioners 34 and 112 and the above petitioners are bound by that donation and I hold that in view of their voluntary donating the above land, the said land stands transferred and vested in the Rajupalem Mandal. The land of Jampana Seshaiah, which was offered, shall also be taken possession of by respondents 1 to 4 and the same shall also be reserved for the activities such as sports etc., concerning the primary education to be imparted in the second primary school. Respondents 1 to 4 shall take steps accordingly as mentioned above.

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.