Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Sections 26, 30, 34, 66 – Compensation for requisitioned property – Unauthorised construction – Constitutional right to property (Article 300A).
(2025) 8 KCD 2 : 2025 KER 57041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. NAGARESH
WP(C) NO. 6653 OF 2023; 1 AUGUST 2025
SR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA
Facts: An educational agency operating a Medical and Dental College (Petitioner) had its hospital, hostel, equipment, and instruments requisitioned by the State authorities (Respondents) under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, for use as Covid First Line and Second Line Treatment Centres during the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner sought compensation/rent for the use of its facilities, calculating approximately ₹46 Crores based on a Technical Circular.
District Collector’s Decision (Ext.P23): The District Collector (2nd Respondent) rejected the petitioner’s claims for compensation, arguing that the building was an “unauthorised construction” and therefore no rent for floor area or rooms could be sanctioned. Regarding medical equipment, the Collector stated there was “no provision now” to pay rent or compensation, and declined price for missing/damaged equipment, claiming they were not taken over by the Government.
Petitioner’s Counter-Arguments: The petitioner asserted that the buildings were constructed after obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Grama Panchayat (Ext.P24) and a construction completion certificate (Ext.P26) from the 2nd Respondent, and that the Grama Panchayat was collecting building tax.
High Court’s Ruling:
Arbitrary Denial of Compensation: The High Court found the District Collector’s decision to be highly arbitrary and unsustainable.
Unauthorised Construction as a Bar to Compensation: The Court held that even if the building required certain statutory clearances or had statutory violations, the authorities who took over and used the property invoking the Disaster Management Act, 2005, cannot decline rent or compensation on the ground that the building construction was unauthorised. Such a denial would offend the constitutional right of the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Any statutory violations should be addressed through permissible actions, not by denying compensation for used property.
Compensation for Equipment: The Court similarly found the reasoning for declining rent/compensation for medical equipment, i.e., “there is no provision now,” to be arbitrary and unacceptable. It held that if the respondents took over medical equipment, they are bound to pay rent/compensation for them, and for any missing or damaged items.
Outcome: The Ext.P23 order of the District Collector was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the District Collector (2nd Respondent) and the District Disaster Management Authority (3rd Respondent) for reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim and payment of due rent/compensation within a period of three months.
