Kerala High Court: The present set of petitions were filed by a Company and a student’s father, respectively, in relation to the ownership of a playground used by the CA Higher Secondary School (‘CA HSS’). The Company claimed ownership over the land stating that it intended to use it as a practice ground for its football club, while the student’s father alleged that the property should be used as a playground for the students’ benefit. A Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J., while allowing the Company’s petition held that the Company had established its ownership by producing the required documents and its possession could not be permitted to be disturbed by unlawful acts of persons who had no right over the property, and consequently, dismissed the other petition.
Background:
The disputed property, whose ownership was in question, comprised of a playground used by the CA HSS. The first petition was filed by the petitioner (‘Company’) seeking to direct Respondents 1 to 3 to grant the necessary police protection for the enjoyment of the disputed property without any obstruction, and the second petition was filed by the petitioner whose daughter was studying in CA HSS, seeking to command Respondents 1 to 3 therein, to ensure that the school ground was used solely as a playground for the benefit of the students.
In the first writ petition, the Company stated that they had purchased 2.1583 acres of land and had absolute title over the property. The Company owned a Football Club by the name ‘Gokulam Kerala Football Club’ and intended to use the land effectively as a regular practice ground for the Club teams. In 2018, when the Company was obstructed during the measurement of the property, it filed a suit in the Munsif’s Court, Alathur, which was decreed ex parte on 30-03-2019, in its favour. The Company was obstructed again when it undertook ground levelling works on the property. The Company then filed for police protection which was denied by the Court holding that the issue involved the adjudication of a civil dispute.
In the second writ petition, the petitioner claimed that his daughter was studying at CA HSS which was established in 1941. The school had a playground having 2 acres and 15.83 cents of land and as per the records of the District Education Officer (‘DEO’), the said property was the school ground of CA HSS. It was pointed out that the legal heirs of the owner of the school sold the ground to the Company, and the ownership and management of the school was sold to the Karunya Education Trust, which later sold it to Prachodan Development Services. However, the petitioner contended that as per Section 2(9) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, the term ‘school’ would include playground also and as per Section 6 of the Act, the school properties could not be alienated without the permission of the educational authorities. The DEO had stated in his written statement that no such permission was obtained from him to transfer the school ground in favour of the Company. Thus, it was alleged that the transfer of the school grounds was illegal, and the Company could not be permitted to usurp the ground.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the disputed property was purchased by the owner of the school and according to the registered conveyance deed, it was the Company that held the title deeds and was the owner of the property and paying the taxes. The contesting respondents or the school authorities had no documents to claim that the property belonged to the school. The Court further noted that the land which was stated to be a playground was situated 500 meters away from the school and the fact that the said ground was earlier used for conducting District and State Level School Sports Meets could not be taken as an indicator to hold that the playground belonged to CA HSS.
The Court opined that there was prima facie evidence that the Company was the owner of the disputed land and therefore, if it was maintaining the land or levelling it for any purpose, the third parties could not physically obstruct the same contending that it was a school ground. The Court observed that the parties claiming the right on the basis of documents were entitled to be in possession of the property and that possession could not be disturbed by unlawful acts of persons who did not claim possessory right over the property. If lawful possession was disturbed by persons having no personal right to possession, police protection had to be granted.
Consequently, the Court allowed the first writ petition and directed Respondent 1 to 3 to grant necessary police protection to the Company for the enjoyment and effective use of the property without any obstruction, and simultaneously, dismissed the second writ petition.
[Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. v. District Superintendent of Police, WP(C) No. 32937 of 2023, decided on 23-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K.B. Pradeep, Harisankar R, Namitha Shaji, AdvocatesG. Krishnakumar, Agnet Jarard, AdvocatesFor the Respondents: G. Krishnakumar, Sabu George, P.B. Krishnan (SR.), P.B. Subramanyan, Manu Vyasan Peter, Agnet Jarard, Advocates, Anima M. (Government Pleader)K.B. Pradeep, Santhosh P. Poduval, T.C. Suresh Menon, Namitha Shaji, R. Rajitha, Chithra S. Babu, B. Deepak, Anna Rose, Advocates, Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader