School Cannot Claim Any Land As Its 'Playground' Without Title Deed: Kerala High Court

Justice N Nagaresh delivered the judgment while considering two writ petitions which related to a property which was claimed to be the only playground of CA Higher Secondary School, Ayyakad.

“There is prima facie evidence that the petitioner-Company is the owners of the disputed land who are in possession. Therefore, if the petitioner-Company is maintaining the land or if they are levelling that land for any purpose, third parties cannot physically obstruct the same contending that it is a School ground. This would be especially so when the School authorities have no claim that they are in possession of any title documents to claim ownership of the said land,” the court observed.

A writ petition (WP(C) 32937/ 2024) was filed by the petitioner- company for police protection for enjoyment and effectively using disputed property without obstruction, following which another writ petition (WP(C) 24269) was filed by the parent of a student at CA Higher Secondary School [CAHSS] seeking to ensure that the School ground of CAHSS be used solely for the purpose of the School as playground of the School for the benefit of the students.

It was submitted that the petitioner-company owns a Football Club by the name “Gokulam Kerala Football Club” and the petitioner intends to use the land effectively as a regular practice ground for the Club teams. It was further submitted that in 2018, when the petitioner took steps to measure the property, the respondents and others obstructed the measurement. The petitioners submitted that the respondents are obstructing utilisation of the petitioner's property, alleging that the property was once used as a playground of the nearby school.

The respondents submitted that the school ground is part and parcel of the School and as per the records of the educational authorities, the said property is a School ground. It further submitted that as per the Section 2 (9) of the Kerala Education Act the term “School” will include playground as well.

It was further submitted that as per the provisions of Chapter X KER, permission of educational authority has to be obtained to transfer any property of an Aided School. Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act also provides that properties of a School cannot be alienated without the permission of the educational authorities.”

It was pointed out by the respondents that the statement filed by the District Education Officer (DEO) stated that no permission was obtained from DEO to transfer the School ground in favour of the petitioner-company and hence the transfer of the School ground was illegal.

It was further submitted that the School was opened in the year 1941 and since then , the disputed land was used as School ground and the District School Sports Meets and State Level Sports Meet are conducted in this School ground. It was further submitted that in 2010, the School was upgraded as Higher Secondary School showing this ground as School ground.

It was submitted that the legal heirs of the owner of the School and its properties sold the ground to the petitioner-Company by a sale deed in 2010 and the petitioner-Company have been possessing ownership of the land since 2010 and are paying land tax for the same.

The Court noted that the petitioner- Company is the owner of the property and paying the land tax. It observed that contesting respondents or School Authorities does not possess any documents to claim that the property which is alleged to be a School ground belongs to the School.

The Court further noted that the land which is stated to be a playground is situated 500 metres away from the School.

“The fact that the said ground was earlier used for conducting District and State Level School Sports Meets cannot be taken as an indicator to hold that the playground belongs to CA HSS.” it added.

The Court held that the parties claiming right on the basis of documents are entitled to be in possession of the property and that possession cannot be disturbed by unlawful acts of persons who do not claim possessory right over the property.

The Court thus allowed the WP(C) 32937/ 2023 by observing that if lawful possession is disturbed by persons having no personal right to possession, police protection has to be granted, while dismissing WP(C) 24269.

Case Title: Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co, (P) Ltd v The District Superintendent of Police and Others and Connected Matter

Case No: WP(C) 32937/ 2023 and WP(C) 24269/ 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 600

Counsel for Petitioner: K B Pradeep, Harisankar R, Namitha Shaji,

Counsel for Respondents in WP(C) 32937/ 2023: G Krishnakumar, Sabu George, P B Krishnan (Sr.), P B Subramanyan, Manu Vyasan Peter, Agnet Jarard, Anima M (GP)

Counsel for Respondents in WP(C) 24269/ 2024: K B Pradeep, Santhosh P Poduval, TC Suresh Menon, Namitha Shaji, R Rajitha, Chithra S Babu, B Deepak, Anna Rose, Dheeraj A S (GP)