State Used Private Building As Covid Facility, Can't Deny Rent Citing 'Unauthorised Construction': Kerala High Court

Justice N. Nagaresh in his order observed that the buildings and valuable equipments belonging to the petitioner educational agency, were taken over by the State authorities during the crucial time of Covid-19 pandemic.

It observed that Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act provides the manner in which compensation has to be computed. The rent was denied alleging that the building is unauthorised. The court noted that buildings were constructed after obtaining NOC from the Grama Panchayat, it had been issued construction completion certificate and the Grama Panchayat was collecting building tax. 

It thus said:

"Assuming that the building requires certain statutory clearances, even then the respondents who have taken over the building and used the same invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 cannot decline rent/compensation holding that the building construction was unauthorised. If there is any statutory violations in the construction of the building, the authorities will be free to take such action as is permissible. But the respondents are legally bound to pay rent/compensation to the petitioner if the building is used by them, failure of which would offend the constitutional right of the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”

The petitioner is an educational agency running a medical college and dental college. During the Covid pandemic, the petitioner was directed to hand over the college along with its human and material resources to the DMO, Thiruvananthapuram. After using the facilities of the petitioner for more than a year, it was handed back. However, the petitioner was not paid any rent or compensation.

The petitioner calculated compensation/rent based on the Technical Circular issued by the PWD and submitted representation for claiming Rs. 46 crores. However, the district collector rejected the same and passed order holding that compensation cannot be awarded since the building is unauthorized. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come before the High Court.

The respondents opposed the plea of the petitioner and stated that rent cannot be paid since the building was unauthorized. Regarding compensation for using medical equipment, it was stated that there is no provision to pay for the same as it was returned to the petitioner.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court said that respondents had taken over not only the hospital building but the medical equipments also. It observed that the Rent/compensation for medical equipments has been declined by the District Collector holding that “there is no provision now” to pay rent/compensation for equipments.

"The reasoning given by the District Collector is highly arbitrary and unacceptable. If the respondents have taken over the medical equipments, then the respondents are bound to pay rent/compensation for medical equipments. Similarly, if any of the equipments are missing or damaged, the petitioner is entitled to due compensation for the loss sustained by him," the court said. 

Setting aside the district collector's order the court remanded the matter back to respondent 2 (District Collector) and respondent 3 (District Disaster Management Authority) for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim of the petitioner and for payment of due rent/compensation.

The plea was disposed of. 

Case No: WP(C) No. 6653 of 2023

Case Title: SR Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 478

Counsel for the petitioner: P.M. Saneer, Tony George Kannanthanam, Nithya R.

Counsel for the respondents: Rajeev Jyothish George – Government Pleader

Click To Read/Download Judgment