AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Society registered as Shri Ganapathi High School Committee, Hebbur in the year 1954 under the provisions of the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1904 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''1904 Act'', for brevity). The name of the petitioner was changed as Shri Ganapathi Vidya Samsthe (Shri Ganapathi Education Society) in the year 2001, which was duly accepted by the Registrar of Societies. The accounts of the Society are audited up to date and the returns are filed regularly with the Registrar of Societies. The Society was desirous of establishing and running a High School at Hebbur and accordingly a decision had been taken in the year 1950, to establish a school premises. Accordingly, a request was made to the Village Panchayath for allotment of land and it is in this background that a gift deed was said to have been executed as on 30.12.1950, as at Annexure-H, pursuant to the resolution at Annexure-G. The school was run uninterruptedly over the decades.
It transpires that suddenly there was interference with the management of the school and physical possession was sought to be disturbed in the year 2011. It is in that background that a suit had been filed in O.S. No. 477/2011. The school having been established as early as in the year 1950, with the assistance of the Village Panchayath, who allotted the land, it was duly upgraded in the year 1982 and thereafter, in the year 1983, even a Composite Pre-University College was established and is being run in the very premises under the control and management of the petitioner. The land and building are duly assessed to tax and the petitioner has been paying taxes. The institutions enjoy the benefit of grant in aid by the State Government.
It transpires that in the year 2009, certain vested interests, according to the petitioner, had made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner that the very land, on which the institutions have been established, was government land and that the petitioner has usurped the same. It is pursuant to this representation, that a show-cause notice came to be issued as on 182.2010, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the recognition of the institution should not be withdrawn for the reason that the land on which the institutions were established appeared to be government land. It was further intimated that till such time that the Deputy Commissioner takes a decision on the question whether the land and building of the institution indeed belonged to the government, no action would be taken.
The petitioner, in this background and under threat of dispossession, had approached the II Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur, by way of a civil suit in O.S. No. 477/2011, seeking injunctive reliefs. An interim order of injunction was granted on 10.11.2011 and the said suit is said to be trending. It is in this background that, after further exchange of correspondence, that the petitioner has been put on notice by the respondents of the withdrawal of recognition, as there was a serious dispute about the ownership of the land and building. It is by order dated 18.6.2012 that the recognition granted to the Pre-University College, has been withdrawn not only on the ground that the institution was being run on land, which belonged to the government, but also at the stage, the school was upgraded into a Pre-University College, that appropriate sanctions and permission were not obtained. It is this which is under challenge in the present petition.
The State Government has entered appearance and filed statement of objections, to contend that though it is seen from the records that the petitioner is a society registered under the 1904 Act and that it had changed its name to Ganapathi Vidya Samsthe, insofar as the gift deed, under which the petitioner claims title, is an unregistered document and therefore, there is no title that could pass under the same and it is seriously disputed that there was ever gift made in favour of the petitioner. Insofar as the suit filed for injunction is concerned, the respondents were restrained from demolishing the buildings and it. is having regard to the finding as to the irregularities insofar as the establishment of the institutions itself, that'' further action has been taken.
It is claimed that by virtue of the report furnished by the Assistant Commissioner dated 23.10.2009, which indicated that the land belonged to the government, that respondent No. 2 had issued a show-cause notice dated 18.12.2010, seeking further information regarding the possession of the land and other infrastructure. The petitioner had failed to furnish the particulars as to the manner in which the same had been acquired over a period of time. It is in that situation that respondent No. 2, had, by letter dated 5.2.2012, recommended to respondent No. 1 to take steps for the withdrawal of recognition, since the management''s claim over the land and building appeared to be dubious. It is pursuant to which, respondent No. 1 had passed orders withdrawing recognition as also the grant-in- aid. The claim of the petitioner that principles of natural justice have not been adhered to is denied incorrect and it is pointed out that it is after much contemplation and over a period of time, that action has been taken. When the land clearly does not belong to the petitioner, it would have no right to run the institution, on land which it has encroached. This is also evident in the manner in which the petitioner also claims to have established a Composite Pre-University College, as the necessary documentation as to the upgradation of the school to a Composite Pre-University College is not made available and therefore, the impugned action on the part of the respondents is sought to be justified.
Given the above facts and circumstances, it is not 111 serious dispute that the institution has been in existence since the year 1950. It is only in the recent past that inquiries have been initiated as to the claim of the State Government that the land and building, on which the institutions are being run, actually belonged to the Government. This is an aspect which is capable of being addressed, without reference to the institutions that are actually run and the action on the part of respondent No. 2 in having initiated directions to respondent No. 1 to withdraw the recognition and permission as well as the grant-in-aid is a knee-jerk reaction in proceeding on the basis that the land and buildings actually belonged to the Government and have been encroached by the petitioner, at this point of time.
Insofar as the claim over the land and buildings is concerned, it would have to be established in accordance with law, notwithstanding that the respondent-State may be in a position to demonstrate, on the face of it, that the title deed, under which the petitioner claims, is an unregistered document. But, having regard to the long undisturbed possession of the land and buildings in question, as seen from the material on record, it would not be possible for the State Government to summarily eject the petitioner, otherwise than under due process of law. That being the case, the question of withdrawing the recognition of the institutions or stopping the grant-in-aid and also permission to run the institutions is unfair and unjust not only to the institutions, but also to the students, teachers and other staff who are part of those institutions.
Accordingly, the State Government shall, notwithstanding the orders and action taken so far, shall initiate appropriate measures in accordance with law independently insofar as the claim over the land and building is concerned. That by itself would not be a reason to withdraw the recognition and the grant-in-aid afforded to the institutions or the permission to run the Composite Pre-University College. However, if the State should establish that the land and buildings do not belong to the petitioner, it may then afford a reason for the State Government to initiate appropriate action through the competent authorities, insofar as the recognition, grant-in-aid and permission to run the educational institutions are concerned. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the respondents seeking to proceed simultaneously against the petitioner and its institutions, on the footing that the land and buildings did not belong to the petitioner, and hence were justified in seeking to withdraw the recognition granted to the institutions of the petitioner, the grant-in-aid and also permission to run the institutions, is unjust and cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned annexures are quashed. The respondent-State however, is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, insofar as the claim that the land does not belong to the petitioner and it is encroached upon by the petitioner. And till that question is determined, there should be no interference with the educational institutions and their management as already indicated.