Telangana High Court
Aginati Ravi Kumar vs Government Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 21 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION NO.27037 of 2014
Between:
Aginati Ravi Kumar and another
...Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad and three
others
...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 21.11.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No
marked to Law Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to : Yes/No
see the fair copy of judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ WRIT PETITION NO.27037 of 2014
%Dated 21.11.2024
Between :
# Aginati Ravi Kumar and another
...Petitioners
and
1. $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Government of Telangana, Hyderabad
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Sahas Reddy,
Asst. Govt. Pleader for Revenue
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. 2017 SCC Online Madras 33945
2. (1991) 3 SCC 520
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.27037_2014
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Memo No.B/1127/2014, dated 30.07.2014, whereunder the respondent No.4 refused to restore and reconvey the unused land, which was donated by the petitioners for construction of Mini Sports Stadium admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas in Sy.No.859 and 860 situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal.
2. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that both the petitioners have jointly purchased an extent of Ac.27.01 guntas of land situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal of erstwhile Nalgonda District through registered sale deeds in the 4 year, 2003 and they were also issued pattadar pass books in respect of the said lands. While the things stood thus, at the request of local MLA and the elders they have donated their land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas in Sy.Nos.859, 860 and 861 for the purpose of construction of Mini Sports Stadium and accordingly the same was alienated in favour of District Sports Development Authority, Nalgonda vide letter No.138/2005 dated 17.03.2005, but in spite of lapse of nineteen years from the date of donation of the land the Stadium was not constructed in the land. But, Kasturba School Building was constructed with the funds under Rajiv Vidya Mission in the donated land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas, without consent of the petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners made application to the respondent No.4 for restoration of their donated 5 land as the same was not utilized for specific purpose for which they have donated. In response thereto, the respondent No.4 vide impugned Memo dated 30.07.2014 informed that since the petitioners have relinquished their right in the donated land and though Stadium was not constructed and the said land being used for Government purpose and therefore patta cannot be restored.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that out of Ac.6.00 Guntas of land donated by the petitioners, Karsturba School was constructed only in an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas and the rest of Ac.4.00 Guntas is kept vacant and therefore the petitioners are requesting for restoration of remaining Ac.4.00 Guntas of land and therefore sought a direction to the respondents to reconvey the balance Ac.4.00 Guntas of unused land and requested to allow the Writ Petition.
6
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions, relied on the following Judgment:
1. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi Vs. P.Bhagya Laxmi 1
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 would submit that the respondent No.4/Mandal Revenue Officer taken over possession of the land to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas donated by the petitioners, for the purpose of construction of Mini Sports Stadium. Since the Mini Sports Stadium was not constructed, out of the donated land, an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas was given to the Kasturba School. At the time of construction of school building, the petitioners have not raised any objection and the petitioners have voluntarily donated the land for the benefit of public in the year, 2005 and therefore it is not possible to redeliver the land and in the future the 1 2017 SCC Online Mad 33945 7 Mini Sports Stadium will be constructed and there are no merits in the Writ Petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
8. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue in support of his contentions, relied on the following decision:
1. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Ernakulam Vs. Abdul Karim Mohd (Dead) by LRs., 2
9. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are the owners of the land to an extent of Ac.27.01 Guntas in Sy.Nos.858, 859, 860 and 861 situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal of erstwhile Nalgonda District and there is no dispute about the ownership of the petitioners in respect of the said lands. At the request of the local leaders and the respondent authorities the petitioners have relinquished their rights in the land admeasuring to an 2 (1991) 3 SCC 520.
8extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas in Sy.Nos.859 and 860 of Mothkur Village in the year, 2005 for the construction of Mini Sports Stadium and the same would reveal from the letter addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3 in Letter No. C/138/2005 dated 15.02.2005 and also from Form-C under Rule-16 of the Land Revenue Rules of 1951 and also orders of the respondent No.4 in Proc.No.138/2005 dated 17.03.2005 and the mutation proceedings were also issued to that effect.
10. The petitioners have donated land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas of land in the form of Form-C (Rajinama or Relinquishment) under Rule-16 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1951 for the specific purpose of construction of Mini Sports Stadium in Mothkur Village. But, the respondent-authorities have not constructed the Mini Stadium in the donated land, therefore the petitioners have made representation to 9 the respondents on 23.06.2014 for restoration of patta in respect of their donated land in Sy.Nos.860 and 861. In response to the same, the respondent No.4 passed impugned Memo No.B/1127/2017 dated 30.07.2014 stating that the Mini Sports Stadium is not constructed in the donated land but constructed Kasturba School in the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas in Sy.No.861 and the remaining land is kept vacant and same is required for Government purpose and rejected the application.
11. The respondents in their Counter contended that once the petitioners have relinquished their rights in an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas of land for the public purpose, they have no right to seek to reconvey the donated land.
12. The petitioners have donated their land for a specific purpose i.e. for construction of Mini Sports Stadium, but the respondents have utilized the land 10 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas for the construction of Kasturba School. If the respondents wants to utilize the donated land for other purposes, they have to inform the same to the petitioners and if the petitioners have not given consent, they have to reconvey the land to the petitioners.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of Madras High Court in Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluq Vs. P.Bhagya Lakshmi (supra 1) squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant paras of the said Judgment is as follows:
"8. The gift of the land was given for a specific purpose. The construction of school building in the name of the donor was the sole object of the gift. There is a marked difference between acquisition of land and the demand for reconveyance on account of the failure to utilize the land for the purpose which it was acquired and a gift of land for a particular public purpose and claim made by the donor for return of the land on the ground that the land was not used for the particular purpose for which it was gifted. In case, it is a compulsory acquisition for public purpose, the 11 scope of reconveyance under Section 48-B is very limited. The Government must be satisfied that the land was not used for the specific purpose and it is not necessary for any other public purpose. Then only, the question of re-conveyance would arise. However, in a case of this nature, when the purpose of gift failed to materialize, the donor would be justified in claiming the land back. There is no right for re-conveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is only a right to consider the request for re- conveyance. However, that is not the case in case it is a conditional gift for construction of school building, hospital, etc., and on account of subsequent events or efflux of time, the object is no more in existence. In case a request is made by the donor on account of the non-accomplishment of the purpose for which gift of land was given, the Government must consider such request giving due weight to the wishes of the donor while executing the gift deed donating the land for the purpose indicated therein.
9. Similar issue came up for adjudication before the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in M.Thiyagarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [2017-2-Writ L.R. 349]. The donors gifted about 25 acres of land for establishing Karur Government Medical College at Kuppuchipalayam Village. The Government accepted the gift and issued an order sanctioning funds for construction of medical college.12
The public works department awarded contract to a local contractor for construction. Subsequent inspection of land by the Director of Medical Education found that the land was not fit for establishing a medical college on account of its locational disadvantages. The Government therefore decided to take another land owned by a Religious institution in exchange of the gifted land. In the mean while, Karur Municipality, resolved to allot 20 acres of its prime land in Karur Town for construction and establishment of Government Medical College. While so, the donors, the contractor and a local politician filed writ petitions before the Madurai Bench to direct the Government to establish the medical college at the land gifted by the donor. The Writ Court granted interim stay and restrained the Government from changing the location. Another writ petition was filed in public interest to accept the municipal land. The Division Bench following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abraham T.J. V. The State of Karnataka [2017 (7) Scale 641] held that it is the prerogative of the Government to select the land for establishing medical college and there is no legal right to claim that only the land gifted by the donor should be used for the public purpose. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the donors and upholding the decision taken by the Government to accept the land offered by the Karur Municipality, the Division Bench directed the 13 Government to return the gifted land to the donors on account of the subsequent events".
14. In the instant case also, the respondents have utilized the gifted land for another purpose for which it was gifted in the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas and not utilized remaining Ac.4.00 Guntas of land. In the Impugned Memo it is stated that it will be utilized for other public purpose and the same is arbitrary and illegal and the finding of the Madras High Court in the above referred Judgment squarely apply to the instant case.
15. The facts in the Judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in Commissioner of Gift Tax, Ernakulam Vs. Abdul Karim Mohd (Supra 2) and the facts in the instant case are different and therefore the said Judgment not apply to the instant case.
16. The petitioners in the instant Writ Petition not 14 seeking to reconvey entire donated land i.e. admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas, now they requested to reconvey the remaining vacant land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas which is stated to be utilized for other Government purposes, but not for the construction of Mini Sports Stadium as stated in the impugned orders. In view of the same, the respondents have to reconvey the remaining vacant land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas to the petitioners and the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.
17. In view of the above finding, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Impugned Memo No.B/1127/2014 dated 30.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.4 and the respondents are directed to reconvey the unutilized land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas situated in Sy.Nos.859 and 860 situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal to the 15 petitioners, within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.
18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:21.11.2024 Note:
LR Copy to be marked trr