'Dubious Attempt By State To Escape Constitutional Embargo': Kerala HC Orders Fair Compensation For Acquisition Of Minority School's Land

The Court observed, “We are certain that this acquisition is a dubious attempt to wriggle out of the constitutional embargo rather than acknowledging any other elements constituting public purpose under the law.”

The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon, delivered the judgment, allowing a writ appeal and the connected matter, held that the State cannot bypass constitutional protections under Article 30(1A) through indirect arrangements.

The core legal issue revolved around Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards the property rights of minority educational institutions. The provision mandates that the State cannot compulsorily acquire property of such institutions without a law ensuring that the acquisition does not abrogate their constitutional rights.

In this case, the State sought to widen access to a bridge by acquiring land from Sree Venkateswara English Medium School, managed by Thulu Brahmana Yogam. Facing constitutional restrictions, the State entered into a compromise with the school; the school's land would be used for public works, and the adjoining private landowners' properties would be acquired to compensate the school. The adjoining owners are the appellants in the present case.

The appellants have contended that the acquisition was a colourable exercise of power. The Single judge dismissed the challenge, and an award was passed. Subsequently, the appellants did not participate in the Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, and therefore, the reference Court held that the appellants were not entitled to enhanced compensation.

The Court emphasised that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, defines “public purpose” in a restricted manner and does not cover acquisition for private schools. Further, even the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, excludes private educational institutions from its ambit.

The Court further observed that in order to overcome the constitutional restriction under Article 30(1A), the State entered into a compromise with the school. The Court observed that it is a private arrangement and a private contract. The Bench observed:

“It rather reflects a deceitful means adopted by the State to get over the constitutional embargo… this acquisition is a dubious attempt to wriggle out of the constitutional mandate rather than uphold any genuine element of public purpose.”

While invalidating the acquisition and setting aside the 2010 award passed by the Reference Court, the Bench took note of the fact that possession of the appellant's land had already been handed over to the school. The appellants, in turn, conceded that they no longer sought restoration of land but only fair compensation.

Accordingly, the Court directed the District Collector to calculate compensation strictly in accordance with the 2013 Act, and ordered that upon receipt of such compensation, the appellants must execute conveyance deeds in favour of the Government or its nominee, with all costs borne by the State.

Case Title - Sulaiman M S and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected Matter

Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

Case No - WA 544/ 2010 and connected matter

Counsel for Appellants - Madhu Radhakrishnan,

Counsel for Respondents - Kurian George Kannanthanam (Sr.), N Anilkumar, S Ranjith (Sr. GP), K P Jayachandran (Addl. Advocate General)

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment