P.K.Krishnaswamy (deceased) and Addl.P2 Karthik Krishna P.K v State of Kerala and others

**WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 P.K.KRISHNASWAMY(DECEASED) AGED 94 YEARS, S/O. P.K.KRISHNA IYER, RESIDING AT KRISHNASREE, UMANAGAR, KODUNTHIRAPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD-678 004.** - **2 ADDL.P2- KARTHIK KRISHNA P.K, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.P.K. KRISHNAMOORTHY, RESIDING AT KRISHNA SREE, UMA NAGAR, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY P.O, PALAKKAD- 678 004. (ADDL.P2 IS IMPELADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.11.2019 IN IA.2/2019 IN WP(C))** **BY ADVS. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM DR. GEORGE ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD-678 001.** - **5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.** **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **2** **6 ADDL.R6-THE PRESIDENT PARENT TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION, SARVAJANA HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHUCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.(ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.10.2016 IN IA.15209/2016)** **R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R6 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.JENZIA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).14320/2019(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **3** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.14320 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **A.KRISHNAKUMARI AGED 52 YEARS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER(MATHEMATICS) (TEACHER IN CHARGE), SARVAJANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUCODE, PALAKKAD-678683.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.RAHUL SMT.T.K.SREEKALA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION EX-OFFICIO MANAGER, SARVAJAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUCODE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678687. 2 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM-676505. 3 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4 KARTHIK KRISHNA.P.K AGED 32 YEARS, S/O P.K.KRISHNA MOORTHY RESIDING AT KRISHNA SREE UMA NAGAR KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2019 IN I.A.2/2019. R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE R4 BY ADV. GEORGE ABRAHAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).17995/2016(Y), THE COURT ON THE** **4** ## **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **5** ## **JUDGMENT** The captioned writ petitions are in respect of mangership of the petitioner late P.K.Krishnaswamy of Sarvajana High School, Puthukode, (Now Sarvajana Higher Secondary School, Puthukode), and approval sought for as Principal in charge of the school respectively. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass this common judgment. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17995/2016 died and consequently his son Karthik Krishna P.K. was impleaded as additional 2[nd] petitioner as per order dated 1.11.2019, in I.A.No.2/2019. The facts and documents available from W.P.(C)No.17995/2016 are relied upon to dispose of the writ petitions. 3. According to the petitioner, petitioner was the Manager of Sarvajana High School, Puthukode, which was later uppgraded as Sarvajana Higher Secondary School, Puthukode, Palakkad District. The Sarvajana Higher Secondary School is situated in a property admeasuring 1.3225 Hectares situate in Survey No.411/2 of Puthukode Village in Alathur Taluk. The **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **6** school was started in the year 1946 and late P.K.Krishanaswamy was managing the school for more than 57 years. There was a dispute with respect to the reinstatement of a full time menial, who was under suspension from 31.3.1998. On the basis of direction issued by the Government, the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad issued a show cause notice dated 17.10.2001, initiating action against late P.K.Krishanaswamy, who was holding charge as Manager of the Sarvajana High School, Puthukode, evident from Ext.P1. Thereupon Ext.P2 reply was submitted. After considering the reply, the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad as per Ext.P3 order dated 4.1.2003 held that petitioner is unfit to hold the office as Manager of the school, apparently invoking the powers conferred under Rule 7 of Chapter III KER. Being aggrieved O.P.No.4128/2003 was filed before this Court. While so, Deputy Director of Education as per a communication dated 6.1.2003 directed one P.V.Parameswara Iyer to convene a meeting of the Sarvajana Education Committee and wanted to elect a new Manager. According to late P.K.Krishanaswamy, Sarvajana Education Committee became defunct, and has never taken charge over the management of the school. It is also pointed out that late P.K.Narayana Iyer, **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **7** petitioner's paternal uncle and head of the petitioner's family was the committee and correspondent. It was also the case of P.K. Krishanaswamy that the Sarvajana Educational Committee was registered earlier and the same was later treated as defunct and struck off from the list of societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 evident from Ext.P4 communication dated 14.3.1959. 4. In fact one Sri.M.E.Syed Mohammed Rawather, who was one of the members of the Sarvajana Educational Committee as per Ext.P5 communication dated 23.4.1966 handed over the management to the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions declaring that the school committee was defunct. Petitioner states that property admeasuring 1.3225 Hectores of land was held in the name of late Krishanaswamy evident from Ext.P6 tax receipt dated 17.12.2002 and Basic Tax Register evident from Ext.P7. Any how, it is submitted that the attempt of the educational authorities to hand over the management of the school to Sri.P.V.Parameswara Iyer, who was the sole living member of the Sarvajana Educational Committee was not fruitful because of the objection raised by late Sri.P.V.Parameswara Iyer himself. It is thereupon that the educational authorities under **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **8** the Kerala Education Rules, recommended taking over the management of the school under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act and thereupon Ext.P8 notification was published in the official Gazettee dated 5.2.2004 purportedly under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act. The District Collector was entrusted the management of the school by the Government and the District Collect re-delegated the same to the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad. Thereupon, late Krishanaswamy, challenged Ext.P8 order by amending O.P.No.4128/2003. While the writ petition was pending, the Government issued Ext.P9 order dated 4.2.2009, extending the period of management of the school beyond 5 years. The case of the petitioner is that there is no power vested with the Government to extend the period of management, and the only option available is to entrust the management of the school to the petitioner after expiry of 5 years. Any how, the original petition was heard and Ext.P10 judgment was rendered on 20.11.2014, directing the State Government to consider the matter, and to take appropriate decision, taking into account the observations contained in the judgment, after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and all other parties concerned, within three months **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **9** from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, a hearing was conducted on 23.6.2015, and the petitioner was represented by his authorized representative and Ext.P11 argument note was also submitted for and on behalf of late P.K.Krishanaswamy,. 5. The case projected by the petitioner is that overlooking the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment, a hearing was conducted by the 1[st] respondent. It is also pointed out that the mandate of Sections 14 and 15 of the Kerala Education Act was not at all considered by the Government, basically on the ground that petitioner could not produce any document with respect to the ownership of the school. So much so, it is contended that Ext.P6 tax receipt and Ext.P7 Basic Tax Register would prove ownership of the school with the petitioner. Any how, the Government has passed Ext.P12 order holding that late P.K.Krishanaswamy is not qualified to function as the Manager and late Krishanaswamy has not produced any documents to prove the ownership of the property wherein the school is situated and therefore, the ownership of the school is not remaining with late P.K.Krishanaswamy,. It was also found that the managing committee consisting of 17 members, were **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **10** managing the school and none of them were living at that point of time. Therefore, in order to conduct the school efficiently, directed the Director of Public Instructions to take appropriate action to take over the school, if there are no cases pending before the High Court. These are the basic back ground facts projected by the petitioner to secure the following reliefs: - “I) To issue a writ of certiorari; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P12 order issued by the 1[st] respondent. - ii) To declare that Ext.P3 and P8 are illegal, arbitrary and is bad in law. - iii) to issue a writ of certiorari; or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash Ext.P3, P8 and P9 orders. - iv) to issue a writ of mandamus; or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to entrust the management and administration of the Sarvajana Higher Secondary School to the petitioner. - v) to issue a writ of mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the illegal action initiated by the respondents, evidenced by Ext.P8 and P9. - vi) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6. The State Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the claims raised by the petitioner and among other contentions it is stated that the school in question was established during 1946, by a committee consisting of 17 **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **11** member as a voluntary initiative to establish a school in Puthukode Grama Panchayat to uplift the educationally backward inhabitants of the area, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act and approved by the District Registrar (General), Palakkad. By the year, 1966, there were only 2 surviving members, out of the 17 members of the committee. In the meanwhile, the committee became defunct and the last of the two surviving members namely Sri.P.R.Sheshadri Ayyar and Sri.P.V.Parameswara Ayyar, proposed the name of an outsider namely Sri.P.K.Krishnaswamy, the petitioner as a correspondent of the Sarvajana High School in 1958 who was not a member of the managing committee and hence he has no management right with ownership right on his own over the school and over the property of the school. It is also pointed out that late P.K.Krishanaswamy, was appointed as correspondent to conduct the day-to-day affairs of the school as the surviving members were old-aged and hence could not actively engage in the affairs of the school. However, late P.K.Krishanaswamy, was only a temporary correspondent and he was trying to usurp the ownership and management right over the school and therefore, it is necessary that the Government **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **12** have to take over the property and management of the school. However while he was functioning so, he was disqualified from holding the office of the Manager on the grounds of serious irregularities committed by him, disobeying departmental directions, mismanagement and maladministration as per the proceedings of Deputy Director of Education Palakkad. Therefore, it is contended that merely because petitioner was functioning as a correspondent he cannot claim to be the Manager of the school, and there is no document at all produced by the petitioner to prove his title over the property. It is also pointed out that the tax receipt and the copy of BTR produced will not confer any ownership right to the petitioner, however, there is no established proof produced by the petitioner with respect to ownership of the property. It was accordingly that the management of the school was taken over by the Government by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 35 of the Kerala Education Act. 7. It is also submitted that petitioner has filed O.S.No.182/2006 before the Munisiff Court, Alathur claiming possession of the property attached to the school. However, the suit was dismissed and appeal against the judgment, preferred **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **13** before the District Court, Palakkad as AS No.255/2007 was dismissed. Even though petitioner preferred RSA No.961/2011 before this Court, it was also dismissed as per Ext.R1 (a) judgment. 8. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the Government is that the stand adopted by the Government in Ext.P12 is in accordance with law and petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The 6[th] respondent Parents Teachers Association has also filed a detailed counter affidavit supporting the stand adopted by the Government. Along with the same, Ext.R6 (a) letter dated 24.5.1966 is produced, which is a communication issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Kozhikode from where it is evident that a communication was issued to one P.R.Seshadri Iyer, one of the surviving members of the defunct Sarvajana High School Committee, Puthukode, expressing to have a discussion with the management of the school and to communicate the convenient date. Later as per Ext.R6 (b) letter dated 11.12.1967, Seshadri Iyer was addressed, **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **14** that late P.K.Krishanaswamy, was appointed as Correspondent of the Sarvajana High School by the Director of Public Instructions on a provisional basis, consequent to the death of the Secretary and the school had no correspondent due to the controversy between the registered committee and the correspondent. It is also evident from the said communication that the Sarvajana Education committee registered under the Societies Act has been declared as defunct and struck off from the list of societies in 1959 by the Registrar of Societies. Therefore, it is directed that a meeting shall be convened of the living members of the society, and take steps to revive the committee and elect a correspondent according to the constitution of the society and then the Department will consider the approval of the legally elected correspondent. Apparently from Exts.R6 (a) and R6 (b) it is evident that one P.V.Parmeswara Iyer was also addressed with the same communications. Any how, as per Ext.R6 (c), Parameswara Iyer has submitted a representation before the then Educational Minister dated 13.7.1998 seeking to cancel the appointment of late P.K.Krishanaswamy, and to declare that the ownership of the school is with the Government and issue orders accordingly. Any how, later as per Ext.R6 (d) the Deputy Director **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **15** of Education, Palakkad has declared that late P.K.Krishanaswamy, is unfit to hold the Office of the Manager of the school due to mismanagement and maladministration. Later the District Educational Officer, approved Sri.P.V.Parameswara Iyer the only living member of the Educational Agency as the Manager of the school provisionally with effect from 24.01.2003 evident from Ext.R6 (e). However, Sri.Parameswara Iyer as per Ext.R6 (f) informed the DEO about his inability to take up the responsibility as the Manager. It was thereafter that the Government issued notification taking over the management of the school for a period of five years and the District Collector, Palakkad was appointed as ex-officio Manager of the school, who in turn has authoritised the Deputy Director of Education to act on his behalf evident from Ext.R6 (i) order dated 11.10.2004, and the Government upheld Ext.R6 (i) order as per Ext.R6 (j) Order dated 21.5.2007. It was in the meanwhile, late P.K.Krishanaswamy filed Original petition before this Court, which was disposed of as per Ext.P10 judgment. 10. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State Government reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. Along with I.A.No.6/2019, petitioner **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **16** has produced receipts to show that the tax was received against the property for the year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99 from the petitioner. However, the Survey Number of the property is not mentioned, but it is seen recorded that 33/111/806, and the extent of the property is also not shown. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleader and learned Counsel appearing for the Parents Teachers Association and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 12. The paramount contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the authority of the petitioner as Manager remains unchallenged. It is also pointed out that there is no power vested with the Government to extend the period of management taken over beyond the period of five years as per the stipulations contained under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act. It is also submitted that the Government has not taken any steps under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act to acquire the school, and therefore, the taking over the management of the school is totally illegal. That apart, it is submitted that the Sarvajana Education Society became defunct and struck off from the list of societies and Sri.P.K.Narayana Iyer **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **17** is the paternal uncle of the petitioner, who was entrusted with the management of the school, even at the time of commencement of the school in the year 1946. That apart it is submitted that there is no emergency situations warranting issuance of an order under Section 14 (2) of the Kerala Education Act and no pre-decisional hearing was offered to the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the entire action of the Government is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 13. On the other hand learned Senior Government Pleader submitted there is no evidence produced by the petitioner before the Government with respect to the management of the school by the petitioner, or the ownership of the property wherein the school is situated. It is also submitted that the school was being managed by an educational society registered under the Societies Act, which later became defunct consequent to the death of the members of the Society. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondent, petitioner is not entitled to get the status of the Manager of the School and continue the management of the school. That apart it is contended that, the tax receipts and the BTR are not conclusive **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **18** documents to establish title of the property in favour of the petitioner. 14. As per the directions issued by this Court, copy of the land register is produced from where it is seen that the owner of the property situated in Survey No.411/2 of Puthukode Village, Alathur Taluk, is one Puthukode Devaswom owner, Naduvilmadam Mooppil Swamiyar. However, against the column of the person in occupation of the property name of late P.K.Krishanaswamy, is shown. It is also submitted there under that the entry in the Column of occupant must have been made in favour of the petitioner, consequent to the petitioner functioning as a correspondent. 15. Learned Counsel appearing for the Parents Teachers Association also submitted that, the documents produced by the PTA along with the counter affidavit clearly proves that the petitioner was only functioning as a Correspondent temporarily, till such time the living members of the society revive the society and elect a correspondent for management of the school. 16. It is true, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has a contention that the school was started in the year 1946, and at that point of time the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920 **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **19** was in force and the said Act only recognises public management and private management, and contention of the petitioner is that society did not have any role to play in the management of the school at that point of time. However, from Section 3 (XII) Public management is defined to mean management by the local Government or by a local authority and all other management shall be deemed to be private management. 17. Therefore, in my considered opinion, society managing the school by electing a Manager can only be treated as a private management and such societies are not excluded from the purview of the Act. 18. Learned Government Pleader has invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Bheema Bai Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th.LR Vs.Arthur Import and Export Company and Others [2019 KHC 6104]** to canvass the proposition that the mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. But it only enables the person in whose favour, mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. 19. During the course of hearing, I have directed the **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **20** learned Government Pleader to find out whether any mutation proceedings have taken place at the instance of the petitioner since in the tax receipts produced, petitioner is shown as the owner of the property. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no evidence for any mutation proceedings on the basis of any application submitted by late P.K.Krishanaswamy. Petitioner also has no case that, mutation of the property was effected in favour of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader has also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in **Mother Superior Vs.Vicar, St.Mary's Church [2011 (2) KLT 837]** to contend that the power conferred under Section 35 of the Kerala Education Act on the Government is absolute. Paragraph 10 is relevant to the context, which read thus: “In support of the jurisdiction of the Government to issue Ext.P5 order impugned in the WP(C) is concerned, the appellant raised two contentions. The first contention is that in effect Ext.P1 is an order illegally effecting change of management and therefore it has to be treated as an order under R.5 or 5A against which appeal/revision is provided to Government. We have already noticed above that there is force in this contention because R.2 order is not required for an “existing School” unless there is a change in management which has to be first effected. The next contention is by relying on S.35 of the Act, which gives residuary powers to the Government for removal of **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **21** any difficulty arising in the administration of the Act and the Rules. The said Section is as follows:- “ **35. Removal of difficulties:** If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may by order, do any thing not inconsistent with such provisions which appear to them to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty.” 20. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, taking over of the management of the school in the complex situation by the Government invoking Section 35 of the Kerala Education Act is in accordance with law. 21. In that regard, learned Government Pleader has also invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Miss Violet Ouchterlong Wapshare and Others Pierce Leslie and Co.Ltd. And others [AIR 1969 SC 843],** and specifically invited to Paragraph 11 which read thus: “These enactments show that in this country the government takes by escheat immovable as well as movable property for want of an heir or successor. In this country escheat is not based on artificial rules of common law and is not an incident of feudal tenure. It is an incident of sovereignty and rests on the principle of ultimate ownership by the State of all property within its jurisdiction. Private ownership not existing the State must be owner as ultimate lord.”, see Collector of Masuliptam v.C.Venkata Narainapath, (1859-61) 8 MIA 500 (525) (PC). The rules of English feudal law relating to mesne lords are not applicable, and **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **22** consequently the zamindar could not take by escheat the land of a tenant dying without heirs. The right of escheat belongs to the government only, see Rance Sonet Kooer v. Mirza Himut Bahadoor, (1875-76) S Ind App 92 (at p.101). The government has the right to take all property within its jurisdiction by escheat for want of an heir or successor and as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner, see Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co.v. State of Bombay 1958 SCR 1122 (1146=AIR 1958 SC 828 (889) Supdt. and Rememberancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, 1967-2 SCR 170 (204)=AIR 1967 SC 997 (1016), consequently property of an intestate dying without leaving lawful heirs, and the property of a dissolved corporation passes to the government by escheat or as bona vacantia. The property taken by escheat of as bona vacantia belongs to the government, subject to trusts and charges if any, previously affecting it.” 22. So also, judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.25782/2008 dated 30.10.2018 was brought to my notice, wherein also it was held that acceptance of the basic tax by itself is no proof of the title over the property and title will have to be determined by adjudication by a civil court. It was further held that the remittance of basic tax is only for fiscal purpose and not for any other purpose. Learned Government Pleader has also invited my attention to yet another judgment of the Apex Court dated 16.10.2019 in Civil Appeal No.5919/2011 _WWW.livelaw.in_ . And specifically to Paragraph 5, which read thus: **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **23** “The contention raised by the appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self acquired property. The said contention is legally misconcieved since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a propery nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence, merely because Mangal Mumhar's name was recorded in the Survey settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.” 23. Therefore on evaluation of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that, the Managership of the school in question and the title to the property are clearly disputed facts, and there is no established proof produced by the petitioner before this Court to show that petitioner was either appointed as the Manager of the school or has absolute title over the properties wherein the school is situated. Moreover, from the tax receipt produced by the petitioner, the Thandaper number of the property alone is shown, and the details of the property, the extent of the property etc etc. are totally absent. The land register produced by the learned Government Pleader on directions by this Court also shows that **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **24** the owner of the property was Puthukode Devaswom Naduvilmadam Mooppil Swamiyar and the petitioner was shown only as an occupant of the property. It is also clear that the school was being managed from 1946 by an education committee consisting of 17 members, even with members outside the family of the petitioner and, even members belonging to other communities. In that view of the matter, when a clear dispute in respect of facts put forth by the petitioner are raised by the respondents with regard to the ownership of the property and the management of the school, in absentia of clear proof, I do not think, the issues raised can be sorted out through a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Government order, since there is no illegality, arbitrariness, or any other legal infirmities justifying to do so. 24. So also, consequent to the death of P.K.Krishnaswamy his son got himself impleaded as the additional 2[nd] petitioner. It is also clear from the impleading application that late P.K.Krishnaswamy has other legal heirs. Therefore in my considered opinion the issues raised by P.K.Krishnaswamy is to be established before a civil court by instituting appropriate **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **25** proceedings. Accordingly the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 25. The liberty of the additional 2[nd] petitioner, and legal heirs of Late P.K.Krishnaswamy are left open to approach the civil court in order to prove the alleged title claimed by them against the property in which the school is situated, ie. Survey No.411/02 of Puthucode village, Alathoor Taluk having an extent of 1.3225 hectors and the managership of the school and the civil court shall consider the same in accordance with law, de hors the observations and findings above. Needless to say if any judgment or decree is produced by the legal heir/legal heirs of late P.K.Krishanaswamy in his or their favour, the issue shall be considered by the Government in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment and the decree. 26. W.P.(C)No.14230/2019 is filed by a Teacher seeking to quash the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad declining approval as Principal in charge of the school in question basically on the ground that afore-connected writ petition was pending before this Court. 27. In view of the dismissal of the connected writ petition and consequential direction, it is for the petitioner to raise the **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **26** claim before the appropriate educational authority, and if any such application is received from the petitioner, it shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that the direction so made shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the matter The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** **SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** ## **JM/** **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **27** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17995/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**P1**|**COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE**| |---|---| ||**DTD.17.10.2001, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**P2**|**COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER DTD.5.11.2001.**| |**P3**|**COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY**| ||**DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DTD.4.1.2003.**| |**P4**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.14.3.1959,**| ||**ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR.**| |**P5**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.23.4.1966.**| |**P6**|**COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.17.12.2002.**| |**P7**|**COPY OF THE BTR OBTAINED FROM THE VILLAGE**| ||**OFFICE, PUTHUCOD.**| |**P8**|**COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.5.2.2004**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**P9**|**COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**GO(RT)JNO.572/2009/GEN.EDN. DTD.4.2.2009.**| |**P10**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.4128/2003.**| |**P11**|**COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**P12**|**COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**GO(RT)NO.4094/2015/GEN.EDN., DTD.15.9.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATE OF**| ||**SARVAJANA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE**| ||**YEAR 1993-94.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE**| ||**YEAR 1995-96.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE**| ||**YEAR 1996-97.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE**| ||**YEAR 1998-99.**| **28** ## **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5A** TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF DISTRICT SURVEY SUPRINTENDENT DATED 18.12.2019 **WP(C).No.17995 OF 2016(Y)** **29** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14320/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.01.2015.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15944/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 29.7.2013.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.3.2019.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE FORMER PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2019.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.4.2019.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.2019.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.5.2019.**