Kerala High Court | School Cannot Claim Land as ‘Playground’ Without Valid Title Deed | Documentary Ownership Upheld Over Historical Use
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh held that a school cannot claim possession of a playground without valid title documents, affirming that parties with lawful documents are entitled to possession. The Court delivered the judgment while deciding two writ petitions concerning land at Ayakkad in Palakkad, claimed by Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd and also asserted to be the sole playground of CA Higher Secondary School. Finding that the school and educational authorities lacked any title documents, the Court upheld the company’s ownership and directed the police to provide protection for its lawful use of the land
The dispute concerned 2.1583 acres of land in Re-survey No.172/2 of Ayakkad Amsom, Palakkad District. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd claimed ownership of the land through registered assignment deeds executed in 2010, purchased from the legal heirs of Balan, who had earlier acquired the property in 2006. The company asserted that it had lawful title and intended to use the land as a training ground for its football team, Gokulam Kerala Football Club.
According to the company, when it attempted to measure and develop the land, local residents, including some respondents, obstructed the activities, claiming that the land had long been used as the playground of CA Higher Secondary School, Ayakkad. The company had previously obtained a decree in its favour in a civil suit confirming its possession and produced supporting documents such as land tax receipts, possession certificates, and other revenue records to establish its ownership. It sought police protection to prevent further obstruction.
A parent of a student of CA Higher Secondary School approached the Court in a separate petition contending that the disputed land constituted the only playground of the school, which was established in 1941. The parent argued that under Section 2(9) of the Kerala Education Act, the term “School” includes its playground, and that under Section 6 of the Act and relevant provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, the property of an aided school cannot be transferred without the approval of the educational authorities. He also pointed out that the land had historically been used for school sports events and that earlier partition deeds described the property as “school ground.”
The educational authorities acknowledged that the property had been used for decades as a school ground but stated that the company had been in possession since 2010 and was paying land tax. They further confirmed that no records were available to prove that the school held ownership of the land or that any lawful transfer of the property had taken place with permission from the authorities as required by law.
The company maintained that it held unchallenged registered title deeds and that neither the school nor the educational authorities could produce documentary evidence to claim ownership. The opposing parties insisted that the long-standing use of the land as the school’s playground entitled the students to its continued use.
The High Court heard both petitions together to determine whether possession should rest on the strength of historical use and educational statutes or on the company’s documented title and whether police protection should be granted to prevent interference with the company’s enjoyment of the property.
The Court recorded: “Going by the registered conveyance deeds, it is the petitioner-Company which is the owner of the property, and now paying land tax. Neither the contesting respondents or School authorities possess any documents to claim that the property which is alleged to be a School ground belongs to the School.” It was further noted that even the school authorities conceded the absence of title documents proving ownership.
The Court observed recorded: “The contention of the contesting respondents is that the land was an integral part of the School since 1941. In Ext.P3 prior title deed, the land in question is described as Ayakkad High School ground. The term ‘School’ would include School playground also as per Section 2(9) of the Kerala Education Act and School properties cannot be alienated without the permission of educational authorities in view of Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act.”
However, the Court underscored that the decisive factor was the chain of registered documents. “It is to be kept in mind that the petitioner-Company is holding title deeds in respect of the property which are not challenged from any quarters successfully. Even the School authorities do not have a case that they hold title documents to establish that when the School was transferred to them, the School ground was also transferred.”
Justice Nagaresh further considered the physical location of the land, noting: “It is to be further noted that the land which is stated to be 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.” The Court relied on the police statement confirming that the company was in possession since 2010 and paying tax, with supporting decrees from civil suits.
Summarising its approach, the Court recorded: “In the afore circumstances, 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.”
Justice Nagaresh stated: “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. If lawful possession is disturbed by persons having no personal right to possession, police protection has to be granted.”
“Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant necessary police protection to the petitioner-Company for enjoyment and effectively using properties covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) without any obstruction from respondents 5 to 8 and persons whom they represent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri. K.B. Pradeep, Shri. Harisankar R, Smt. Namitha Shaji, Shri. G. Krishnakumar, Smt. Agnet Jarard
For the Respondents: Shri. P.B. Krishnan (Senior Advocate), Shri. P.B. Subramanyan, Shri. Manu V. Peter, Shri. Sabu George, Shri. Santhosh P. Poduval, Shri. T.C. Suresh Menon, Smt. R. Rajitha, Smt. Chithra S. Babu, Shri. B. Deepak, Smt. Anna Rose, Smt. Anima M., Government Pleader, Shri. Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader
Case Title: Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd v. District Superintendent of Police & Ors; K.D. Lenin v. Deputy Director of Education & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:69929
Case Numbers: W.P.(C) No.32937 of 2023 & W.P.(C) No.24269 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
