Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment that reaffirms the constitutional rights of minority institutions, recently delivered its verdict in the case Sulaiman M S and Ors v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected Matter, WA 544/2010. The Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon came down heavily on the State of Kerala for attempting to circumvent the constitutional safeguards under Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India. The controversy arose out of a land acquisition process initiated by the State for widening access to a bridge, where land belonging to Sree Venkateswara English Medium School, managed by the Thulu Brahmana Yogam, was to be used for public purposes. Faced with the constitutional bar on compulsory acquisition of minority institution property without a protective law, the State allegedly devised a compromise arrangement. Instead of compensating the school directly, adjoining private lands belonging to appellants were acquired and handed over to the school. The appellants challenged the legality of this acquisition, contending that it was a colourable exercise of power designed to wriggle out of constitutional protections. The Single Judge had dismissed their challenge earlier, but on appeal, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, invalidating the acquisition and directing that fair compensation be provided strictly under the 2013 Act. This case stands at the intersection of minority rights, constitutional law, and the principles of fair compensation under land acquisition law.

Appellants’ Arguments:

The appellants, whose lands were acquired and handed over to the minority-run private school, argued that the entire process was a colourable exercise of power. According to them, the acquisition lacked a legitimate public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They emphasized that both the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act specifically exclude private educational institutions from the definition of “public purpose.” Therefore, they contended, the State had no authority to acquire their land in order to compensate a private school. The appellants accused the State of adopting deceitful methods to overcome the constitutional safeguard enshrined in Article 30(1A), which prohibits the compulsory acquisition of property belonging to minority institutions unless protective legal mechanisms are in place. They further asserted that the compromise entered into between the State and the school was essentially a private arrangement or contract that could not form the basis of compulsory acquisition under statutory provisions. The appellants also challenged the award passed in 2010 and submitted that their constitutional right to property had been violated. While conceding that they no longer sought restoration of possession of their land, given that it had already been handed over, they firmly demanded fair compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act, which mandates transparency and higher compensation standards.

Respondents’ Arguments:

On the other hand, the State of Kerala defended its actions by framing the acquisition as an exercise in public interest. Represented by senior counsel, the State argued that the widening of access to the bridge constituted a valid public purpose, and the arrangement with the minority-run school was merely a method of ensuring compliance with constitutional restrictions. The State contended that the arrangement was not an attempt to circumvent Article 30(1A) but rather a practical solution to balance public infrastructure needs with constitutional safeguards. The State highlighted that the appellants had earlier failed to participate in the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, and therefore they could not now seek enhanced compensation belatedly. Counsel for the respondents maintained that since possession had already been taken and the school was functioning on the land, the appellants’ claims were limited to monetary compensation. The State also asserted that the appellants had suffered no prejudice, as compensation had been awarded under the 1894 Act, and therefore the writ appeal was unnecessary.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, after carefully considering the facts and arguments, found in favor of the appellants and strongly criticized the State’s conduct. The Court observed that the acquisition was indeed a “dubious attempt” by the State to evade the constitutional mandate under Article 30(1A). The Bench categorically held that Article 30(1A) was designed to protect minority-run educational institutions from arbitrary or disadvantageous acquisitions and that the State could not adopt indirect methods or compromise arrangements to bypass these protections.

The Court emphasized that the definition of “public purpose” under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was restrictive and did not extend to acquisitions benefiting private schools. Similarly, the 2013 Act, which replaced the 1894 legislation, expressly excludes private educational institutions from its ambit. In light of this, the Court held that the State’s arrangement with the school could not be justified as an acquisition for public purpose. Instead, it reflected what the Court described as a “deceitful means” to sidestep constitutional safeguards.

While invalidating the acquisition and setting aside the award of 2010, the Court acknowledged that possession had already been transferred to the school and that the appellants had conceded they no longer sought restoration of the land. Therefore, the Bench focused on ensuring that the appellants received just and fair compensation. It directed the District Collector to calculate compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act, which provides for higher and fairer compensation compared to the old law. The Court also ordered that once compensation was paid, the appellants were to execute conveyance deeds in favor of the Government or its nominee, with all associated costs to be borne by the State.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court not only protected the property rights of the appellants but also delivered a stern reminder to the State about the sanctity of constitutional protections. The judgment reiterates that minority rights under Article 30(1A) cannot be diluted through indirect or compromise mechanisms, and that the State must adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and legality in acquisition proceedings.