Madras High Court
P.Kannan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 October, 2023
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
P.Kannan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Registration,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. Registration Department,
Tamil Nadu Registration Department,
No.100, Santhome Highway,
Chennai.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o. Registration,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the gift settlement deed in survey
number 77 in an extent of 40 cents in Mattalamparai village, Tenkasi
District in Document No.1111/2015 dated 15.06.2015 and to restore it in
earlier position within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani,
Spl. Government Pleader.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner had executed gift deed dated 15.06.2016 in favour
of the second respondent. The gift was with a purpose. It was the
understanding between the parties that on the gifted land, the office of
the Sub-Registrar will be constructed. Though the department accepted
the gift, they chose to put up office of the Sub Registrar, Tenkasi in some
other place and not in the gifted land. Thus, the purpose for which the
gift was made had been rendered infructuous. The petitioner therefore
wants to cancel the document itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
3.Representation was made in this regard. Since the respondents
did not come forward to have the document cancelled, the present writ
petition came to be filed.
4.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. The
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.11.2017 in
W.A.No.1448 of 2017 held as follows:-
“8.In Tahsildar Pollachi and another vs.P.Bagyalakshmi,
judgment dated 30 October 2017, in W.A.No.836 of 2017, a similar
issue regarding gift of land for constructing school building and the
claim for return of the land on the ground of non utilization came up
for consideration before this Court. While directing the Government
to consider the request, this Court made the following observation:-
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 later on account of the
failure to utilise the land for the purpose for which it
was acquired and a gift of land for a particular public
purpose and claim made by the donor for return of land
on the ground that the land was not used for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
particular purpose for which it was gifted. In case, it is
a compulsory acquisition for a public purpose, the scope
of re-conveyance 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 pubic purpose. Then only, the question of re-
conveyance would arise. However, in a case of this
nature, when the purpose of gift failed to materialise, 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, hospial, 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 which 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 of establishing Karur Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
Medical College at Kuppuchipalayam Village. The Government
accepted the gift and issued an order sanctioning funds for
construction of medical college. 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 meanwhle, 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 Government
to return the gifted land to the donors on account of the subsequent
events.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
5.I had followed the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in
W.P.(MD)No.7678 of 2009 [reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 1685
(K.Veerukannian Vs. Chief Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu)].
In that case, the land was gifted for constructing an additional school
building. Even though the donation was made for a specific purpose, no
such additional building was constructed. I, therefore, directed
reconveyance of the land in question by cancelling the gift deed.
6.The very same approach has to be necessarily adopted in the
present case. The basic facts are not in dispute. The Sub Registrar,
Tenkasi is directed to cancel the petition mentioned gift deed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Thereafter, the gifted land shall be formally handed over to the petitioner.
7.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
09.10.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
To:-
1.The Secretary,
Department of Registration,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. Registration Department,
Tamil Nadu Registration Department,
No.100, Santhome Highway,
Chennai.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o. Registration,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2022
09.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
