It’s only facts that get debated in a court room, or between opponents who clash on legal grounds. Sometimes, the court will have to resolve philosophical issues also.
When the Madras High Court lifts the scales of justice, it is not necessary that it will always end up weighing the good against the bad. At times, it may even have to balance between the good and the larger good. The court recently held that in case of a conflict between public interest and charitable purpose, the former will take precedence over the latter since it benefits a comparatively larger section of people.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam wrote, “Charity is intended to benefit a section of people, whereas a decision taken for public purpose is intended to benefit the public in general. When charitable purposes and public interest are weighed, a balance is sought to be achieved to the maximum extent possible to ensure the benefits reach the largest section of the population and they are enjoyed by the common man.”
Pleas for ‘patta’ dismissed
The verdict was delivered while the court dismissed a couple of writ petitions filed by Valluvar Gurukulam which sought ‘patta’ (revenue document on land ownership) for 9.77 acres of government land that had been assigned to it, free of cost, at Tambaram, in Chennai on April 18, 1944 for the purpose of running a school for the disadvantaged sections. The then Revenue Board had alienated the land by imposing several conditions. The school management had also challenged the recent decision of the State government to resume 4.56 acres of the school land that were under encroachment by private individuals and use 2.32 acres of the resumed land for construction of a building to house the Tambaram Police Commissionerate. However, the judge declined its request and directed the government to proceed with the construction and complete it at the earliest.
“Land acquisition or resumption of government land is based on the doctrine of ‘eminent domain’ which is similar to the public trust doctrine. The doctrine of eminent domain provides that the State has an overarching control over the land and in this regard it is guided by two principles: Salus populi est suprema lex (welfare of the people is the most important) and Necessitas publica est major quam private (public necessity is greater than private necessity),” he observed.
.
While taking possession of the land, what must be taken into account “is the number of people being affected due to the resumption of government land viz., the potential number of people benefiting from such resumption,” he added. In the present case, the judge also found the school management having flouted the land assignment conditions, which had consequently led to nearly half of the assigned land having been encroached upon by third parties.
“The petitioner claims to be a charitable institution. No doubt, when the lands were assigned, they were doing charity to a particular category of people. But as of now, the petitioner is collecting fees from the students for English medium classes and receiving ₹7,000 per student. That being the factum, the petitioner/school as of now cannot be construed as a complete charitable institution,” the judge concluded.
