JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. WP(C) No.21720 of 2021 1. WP(C) No.21720 of 2021 is filed challenging Ext.P13 order and for other consequential reliefs. 2. It is averred that the petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Naduvilmadom group of temples which consists of 18 temples spread over in Malabar area. The property was given by a grant to late Justice Sundara Iyer of the Madras High Court, by the petitioner for establishing Harihara Patasala as per Ext.P1 document dated 04.07.2012. A higher Secondary school was established in 1946 and a committee by name ‘Sarvajana Education Committee’ was formed and the committee is managing the school, and late P.K. Krishnaswamy was officiating as manager of the school. Petitioner relying on Ext.P2 would submit that the title over the property still vests with the petitioner. But due to some mistakes in the BTR the name of the former manager P.K. Krishnaswamy was shown as land owner in Ext.P3 BTR. While so, by Ext.P4 Government decided to take over the management of the school for a period of five years invoking the powers under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1958’), in public interest for the reason that the school is not functioning properly owing to mismanagement and maladministration. Ext.P4 proceedings were challenged by Sri. P.K. Krishnaswamy who was the then Manager by filing WP(C) No.4128/2003 , in which the petitioner also got impleaded as additional 13 th respondent, and the said original petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 finding that the period of five years is already over and therefore directed the 1 st respondent Government to consider the matter and take a decision on the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other parties concerned. The petitioner could not participate in the hearing before the Government as there was another hearing scheduled before the Commission of Malabar Devaswom Board and Ext.P6 request seeking adjournment of the hearing was submitted by the petitioner. Without considering the said request, and without hearing the petitioner Government passed Ext.P7 order finding that, as the manager of the school could not make available any document showing the ownership of the school, Government in principle decided to take over the school permanently. Later Ext.P7 was challenged by Sri. Without considering the said request, and without hearing the petitioner Government passed Ext.P7 order finding that, as the manager of the school could not make available any document showing the ownership of the school, Government in principle decided to take over the school permanently. Later Ext.P7 was challenged by Sri. P.K. Krishnaswamy and this Court in Ext.P8 judgment categorically found that though in BTR name of Krishnaswamy is shown as the owner of the school and the property, the land register produced before the Court as per the direction issued by the Court revealed that the owner of the property is Puthucode Devaswom owner Naduvilmadhom Mooppil Swamiyar. Therefore, petitioner therein was relegated to approach the competent Civil Court to prove his ownership over the school and the properties. Later, Ext.P9 representation was filed by the petitioner requesting to drop attempt to take over the petitioner’s school, and thereupon a report was called for from the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P10. When petitioner came to know that attempts were being made to take over the school by the Manager he again filed Ext.P10 representation pointing out the factual situation and produced all documents in support of his contentions. Thereupon, a report was called for from the 3 rd respondent as per Ext.P12. While petitioner was awaiting orders in this matter, to the total surprise of the petitioner Government issued Ext.P13 taking over 10 schools as Government schools in which the petitioner’s school is included as serial number 10. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that the Government in principle decided to take over the petitioner’s school after completing the formalities. Thereupon, petitioner again filed Ext.P14 representation before the 3rd respondent. By Ext.P15 notice the petitioner was directed to be present before the 3 rd respondent for a hearing on 10.08.2021, and the petitioner appeared before the 3 rd respondent and argument notes, but petitioner was again informed as per Ext.P16 to produce documents in support of his contentions. It is in the said circumstance that the present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P13. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent Government contending that the school was run by a committee consisting of 17 members, and there was total misconduct and maladministration and Department initiated disciplinary action against Sri. It is in the said circumstance that the present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P13. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent Government contending that the school was run by a committee consisting of 17 members, and there was total misconduct and maladministration and Department initiated disciplinary action against Sri. Krishnaswamy and he was found guilty of the charges, and Department disqualified him from holding the charge of the correspondent and the manager. The only surviving member of the Sarvajana Education Committee Sri. P.V. Parameswara Iyer intimated the Government his inability to take over the management of the school due to his ill health. Thereupon the Government took over the management of the school for five years. Though the request of the petitioner was considered and he was directed to produce documents, he failed to do so by producing substantive evidence to prove his ownership. The manager of the Sarvajana Education Committee gave consent to take over the school by the Government and the Parent Teachers Association was also in favour of the takeover and the Government decided to take over the school permanently and steps are being taken to complete the process, and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. WP(C) No.5935 of 2021 4. It is a writ petition filed by the additional 8th respondent in WP(C) No.21720 of 2021 contenting that the petitioner Trust is a charitable Trust and is running another school in Palakkad District, and they intend to take over the management of the school run by the Corporate Education Agency Sarvajana Education Committee as the committee is defunct at present. Since the petitioner Trust is having experience and funds to run the High School Exts.P3 and P5 requests were filed before the 1st respondent, but no action has been taken on the same. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 6. The management of the school was taken over by the Government as per Ext.P4 for a period of five years. The said action was by invoking Section 14 of the Act, 1958. Section 14 of the Act only empowers the Government to take over management of the school. What has now been done as per Ext.P13 order is a decision on principle to take over permanently certain schools including the school of the petitioner. The said action was by invoking Section 14 of the Act, 1958. Section 14 of the Act only empowers the Government to take over management of the school. What has now been done as per Ext.P13 order is a decision on principle to take over permanently certain schools including the school of the petitioner. Petitioner relying on Exts.P1 and P2 submits that they are the owners of the school and the properties. The land tax register produced before this Court while considering WP(C) No.17995 of 2016 , which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment, reveals that the owner of the property in Sy.No.411/2 of Puthucode Village, Alathur Taluk is one Puthucode Devaswom owner Naduvilmadhom Mooppil Swamiyar, the petitioner herein. It is on the basis of the same that the petitioner would contend they are the owners of the property and therefore any attempt to take over the school and property other than taking over the management of the school as empowered as per Section 14 of the Act can only be with notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, and after duly compensating the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act. A perusal of Ext.P13 order would reveal that 10 schools were decided to be taken over by the Government and permission was granted on principle to take further steps in this regard. It is thereafter that Ext.P14 was submitted by the petitioner, and Exts.P15 and P16 notices were issued. The Special Government Pleader (Education) based on the communication received from the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad dated 21.07.2025 submits that though sufficient time was granted, the petitioner could not produce any document to substantiate that they are the owner of the school and the property. 7. Section 15 of the Act, 1958 deals with the power of the Government to acquire any category of school. Section 15 reads as follows:- “ 15. 7. Section 15 of the Act, 1958 deals with the power of the Government to acquire any category of school. Section 15 reads as follows:- “ 15. Power to acquire any category of schools .- (1) If the Government are satisfied that for standardising general education in the State or for improving the level of literacy in any area or for more effectively managing the aided educational institutions in any area or for bringing education of any category under their direct control, in the public interest it is necessary to do so, they may, by notification in the Gazette, take over with effect from any day specified therein any category of aided schools in any specified area or areas; and such schools shall vest in the Government absolutely with effect from the day specified in such notification. Provided that no notification under this sub-section shall be issued unless the proposal for the taking over is supported by the resolution of the Legislative Assembly. (2) Where any school has vested in the Government under sub-section (1), compensation shall be paid to the persons entitled there to on the basis of the market value thereof as on the date of the notification: Provided that where any property, movable or immovable, has been acquired, constructed or improved for the purpose of the school with the aid or grant given by the Government for such acquisition, construction or improvement, compensation payable shall be fixed after deducting from the market value the amounts of such aids or grants: Provided further that in the case of movable properties the compensation payable shall be the market value thereof on the date of the notification or the actual cost thereof less the depreciation, whichever is lower. (3) In determining the amount of compensation and its apportionment among the persons entitled thereto the Collector shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may, in the prescribed manner, appeal to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the school is situated within sixty days of the date of such award and the decision of the Judge shall be final. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may, in the prescribed manner, appeal to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the school is situated within sixty days of the date of such award and the decision of the Judge shall be final. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to minority schools.” Going by Section 15 , Government is empowered to acquire any category of school if the Government is satisfied that for standardising General Education of the State or for improving the level of literacy in any area or for more effectively managing the aided education Institutions in an area or for bringing education of any category under their direct control in public interest, may by notification in the gazette take over with effect from any day specified therein any category of aided schools in any specified area or areas, and such schools shall vest in the Government absolutely with effect from the day specified in such notification. Proviso to Section 15 (1) mandates that no notification under the sub-section shall be issued unless the proposal for the take over is supported by the resolution of the Legislative Assembly. Section 15 (2) mandates that when any school is vested in the Government, compensation shall be paid to the person entitled thereto, on the basis of market value thereof as on the date of notification. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that it is only in principle that the Government has decided to take over the school contended to be in the ownership of the petitioner. Therefore, any further proceedings to acquire the school can only be with notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after following the procedures as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act, 1958. 8. Therefore, any further proceedings to acquire the school can only be with notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after following the procedures as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act, 1958. 8. Therefore, WP(C) No.21720 of 2021 is disposed of as follows:- If the 1 st respondent Government decide to proceed with the acquisition of Sarvajana Higher Secondary School, Puthucode, Palakkad, which is claimed to be in ownership of the petitioner, the Government shall issue a notice to the petitioner and hear them and consider all the documents produced by the petitioner and the argument note to be submitted at the time of hearing, and verify whether the petitioner has any document in support of their claim of ownership of the property of the school and thereafter take appropriate decision in the matter strictly following the procedures as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act, 1958. In WP(C) No.5935 of 2021 the petitioner submits that they intend to take over the school allegedly in the ownership of the petitioner in WP(C) No.21720 of 2021. The request of the petitioner in WP(C) No.5925 of 2021 in this regard before the Government can be considered only after the Government take a decision in the matter as directed above in WP(C) No.21720 of 2021. In the light of the same, I am not inclined to issue any positive directions in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the management of the school could be undertaken by the Deputy Director of Education as its Manager.