University Of Hyderabad vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1414 Tel

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                            W.A.No.425 of 2021

JUDGMENT:       (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


     This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3502 of

2009 dt.05-07-2021.


      2.   Heard Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant-University, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4,

Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for 5th respondent, Sri

Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.6 to 13.

3. It has been contended by the appellant

University that it was established by the Parliament under

Article 371 (d) (e) of the Constitution of India and the State

was pleased to allot 2300 acres of land in favour of the

appellant University at Kancha Gachibowli with the

condition that the land should be used only for the

purpose of education and technology and if the land is not

to be used for any other purpose, without obtaining

permission from the State government, the land will be

reverted back to the State Government. The appellant

University had further contended that after the State

Government has allotted 2300 acres in its favour, it has

established a Central University which is called as

University of Hyderabad and constructed a compound wall

and at present, the appellant University is imparting

education in various courses to the students.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant University

had further contended that the appellant University is one

of the reputed universities in the country. He had further

contended that one Sri S.Lingamaiah had filed O.S.No.193

of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, against the appellant University and also

the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking possession of land

admeasuring Ac.25.16 gts in Sy. Nos.14 and 16 to 23

situated at Kancha Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District as he was claiming ownership of the

said land. Learned counsel for the appellant University

had further contended that the said suit was decreed in

favour of Lingamaiah on 19-02-1994. Thereafter, the

appellant University has preferred First Appeal i.e.

A.S.No.1034 of 1994 before this Court and during

pendency of the First Appeal, Lingamaiah had expired and

his legal reprsentatives were brought on record and finally,

the First Appeal was dismissed vide judgemnt dt.17-11-

2001. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Lingamaiah have filed

E.P.No.11 of 2002 for execution of judgment and decree

dt.19-02-1994 in O.S.No.193 of 1982 and in pursuance of

the orders passed in E.P.., the land admeasuring Ac.25.16

gts in Sy. Nos.14, 16 to 23 was delivered to the legal heirs

of Lingaiah on 31-01-2003. But the said land had no

approach road. Ultimately the appellant University had

conceded the request of the legal heirs of Lingamaiah for

providing alternative main land keeping in view the

impending security problems which may arise due to entry

of the strangers into the appellant University and the

Executive Council on 24-12-2003, resolved to provide

alternative land admeasuring 12.17 gts situated in between

IIIT and Sports village in lieu of Ac.25.16 gts and the said

proposal was sent for approval to the Government through

proper channel. The District Collector who inturn

forwarded the same to the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter

dt.08-03-2004 and thereafter, on 11-04-2005, the District

Collector has forwarded a letter issued by the Chief

Commissioner of Land Administration raising certain

quarries to the appellant University, to which the appellant

University submitted its reply emphasizing the need for

according sanction for exchange of land. However, the

proposal of the appellant University was rejected by the

State Government vide Memo dt.20-12-2005. Later,

W.P.No.27316 of 2005 was filed before this Court by the

land owners seeking implementation of the proposal of

exchange of land and the said Writ Petition was disposed of

by this Court on 30-12-2005 with the following

observation:

"The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court the copy of the letter, dated

20-12-2005, addressed by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, through which, the proposal submitted by the respondent was rejected. In that view of the matter, no directions can be issued in this regard. If the petitioners have any problems in the matter of enjoying the land in question, they have to work out their remedies in the Civil Court."

5. The counsel for the appellant had contended

that the land owners have submitted yet another

representation on 30-01-2006 expressing their inclination

to accept the land in two different locations. Learned

counsel for the appellant University had further contended

that the 1st respondent had issued the impugned G.O.

directing the District Collector to resume the land to an

extent of Ac.25.31 gts. in Sy. No.37 from the appellant

University and handover the same to the land owners,

ignoring the fact that on an earlier occasion, the land

owners have agreed for exchange of land admeasuring

Ac.12.17 gts in lieu of Ac.25.16 gts. The State Government

has no authority to issue G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2018

to resume the land of the appellant University and

handover to the unofficial respondents without the consent

of the appellant University.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant University

had further contended that originally, Lingamaiah has filed

O.S.No.193 of 1982 against the appellant University as well

as the State Government and when the suit preferred by

Lingamaiah was dismissed against the State, the State

ought not to have allotted Ac.25.31 gts in Sy. No.37, in

favour of the unofficial respondents. Challenging the

action of the State Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.1493,

the appellant University has filed W.P.No.3502 of 2009

before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that in the said Writ Petition at the time of

admission, this Court was pleased to grant interim order

on 20-02-2009 staying all further proceedings pursuant to

G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2008 and the learned counsel

for the appellant had contended that the State Government

ought not to have issued the said G.O. in favour of

unofficial respondents, more so, when the suit preferred by

Lingamaiah was dismissed in respect of the State

Government.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that the learned Single Judge without

appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant

University had mechanically dismissed the Writ Petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended

that when the unofficial respondents have agreed for

exchange of Ac.12.17 gts in lieu of their original claim of

Ac.25.16 gts, the State Government ought not to have

issued G.O.Ms.No.1473, more so, when the State

Government has allotted 2300 acres of land in favour of

the appellant University and the State Government is no

more the ownership of the said extent of land so as to

enable them to pass an order of exchanging the land of

University in favour of unofficial respondents. Therefore,

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeals setting

aside the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3502

of 2009 dt.05-07-2021.

9. Sri Ravindra Srivatsava, learned Senior

Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 13, had

contended that the suit preferred by Lingamaiah

O.S.No.193 of 1982 was decreed against the appellant

University vide orders dt.19-02-1994 and the appellant

University itself has passed resolution on 24-12-2003 for

allotment of alternative land to an extent of Ac.12.17 gts in

favour of the unofficial respondents in order to honour the

decree passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.193

of 1982 dt.19-02-1994 and subsequently the appellant

University vide letter dt.27-02-2006 had in principle agreed

for exchange of land to an extent of Ac.21.00 gts in Sy.

No.37 of Gopannapally village in lieu of Ac.25.31 gts

situated in Sy. No.14 and 16 to 23 of Kancha Gachibouli

and in pursuance of the request made by the appellant

University only, and in order to honour the decree passed

by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.193 of 1982

dt.19-02-1994, the State Government has rightly issued

the said G.O. and the interim orders granted by this Court

on 20-02-2009 staying of all further proceedings in

pursuance to the said G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2008 were

modified when vacate stay application filed on

02-09-2009 and the said interim orders were modified in

the following manner:

"The impugned G.O. is proposing to exchange only Ac.4.31 gts of land in excess of the proposals made by the University. Thus, it is made clear that the stay order granted is only to an extent of Ac.4.31 gts and the University is at liberty to hand over the land of Ac.21.00 gts as per the said G.O. in respect of the remaining land of Ac.4.31 gts in Sy. No.37, the University shall maintain status quo as of today."

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial

respondents had further contended that in pursuance to

the modification of interim orders, the State has also

executed exchange deeds in favour of unofficial

respondents to an extent of Ac.21.00 gts on 14-04-2014

and unofficial respondents have already constructed

buildings in pursuance to the exchange deeds executed by

the State Government in favour of unofficial respondents.

The issue in the present Writ Appeal revolves only to an

extent of Ac.4.31 gts. Admittedly, the suit which was

decreed against the appellant University was to an extent

of Ac.25.16 gts and the State Government in order to

ensure that entire extent of land covered under decree in

O.S.No.193 of 1982 dt.19-02-1994 be honoured and the

State has rightly issued G.O.Ms.No.1473 in favour of the

unofficial respondents. Therefore, there are no merits in

the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. This Court having considered the rival

submissions of the parties is of the considered view that

the State Government has handed over 2300 acres of land

to the appellant University. Admittedly, no document

could be shown by the appellant University that it is the

owner of the land. Admittedly the State Government has

allotted 2300 acres of land in favour of the appellant

University way back in 1975 with a condition that the land

allotted should be used only for education and technology

purpose, and if the land is used for any other purpose, the

State Government has reserved right to resume the land

from the appellant University and the appellant University

had also passed resolutions through its Executive Council

on 24-12-2003 to allot alternative land in favour of the

unofficial respondents and the said resolution was

forwarded to the State Government by taking appropriate

action. Later, for the reasons best known to the appellant

University, the appellant University had in principle agreed

for exchange of land to an extent of Ac.21.00 gts in Sy.

No.37 of Gopannapally village in lieu of Ac.25.16 gts in

favour of unofficial respondents as the appellant University

has suffered a decree in O.S.No.193 of 1982 dt.19-02-1994

and very strangely, the interim orders which were originally

granted on 20-02-2009 by this Court were modified, when

vacate stay application was filed, on 02-09-2009 to the

following effect:

"The impugned G.O. is proposing to exchange only Ac.4.31 gts of land in excess of the proposals made by the University. Thus, it is made clear that the stay order granted is only to an extent of Ac.4.31 gts and the University is at liberty to hand over the land of Ac.21.00 gts as per the said G.O. in respect of the remaining land of Ac.4.31 gts in Sy. No.37, the University shall maintain status quo as of today."

and very strangely, the appellant University has not carried

matter in appeal challenging the modification of the interim

orders and the appellant University has also not carried

the matter in appeal to the Apex Court by filing an appeal

against the dismissal of First Appeal i.e. A.S.No.1054 of

2014 dt.17-11-2001. Though the interim orders were

modified in the Writ Petition on 02-09-2009, the exchange

deeds were executed by the State Government in favour of

unofficial respondents on 14-04-2014. Even the exchange

deeds, which were executed by the State Government at

the instance of appellant University in favour of unofficial

respondents, were also not challenged by the appellant

University and by virtue of exchange deeds, valuable land

to an extent of Ac.21.00 gts have been passed on to the

unofficial respondents in the form of exchange deeds that

too at the instance of the appellant University. The only

issue which remains for adjudication is in respect of

Ac.4.16 gts of land. Admittedly, the appellant University

has not taken any steps to protect its valuable land. The

appellant University ought to have acquired Ac.25.31 gts

from its original owner Lingamaiah instead of contesting

the suit and having suffered a decree at the hands of

Lingamaiah in O.S.No.193 of 1992 dt.19-02-1994 and

later, miserably failed in the First Appeal i.e. A.S.No.1054

of 1994 dt.17-11-2001, and the appellant University has

not even carried the matter further in appeal to the Apex

Court. Usually this Court would have come to the rescue

of University in order to protect its valuable land and this

Court is of prima facie opinion that the State Government

was not justified in issuing G.O.Ms.No.1473

dt.10-12-2008. More so, when O.S.No.193 of 1992

preferred against the State Government was dismissed, it

is appellant University, which has passed resolutions in

the Executive Committee agreeing for exchange of land

with unofficial respondents and requested the State

Government for allotment of alternative land in favour of

unofficial respondents in order to honour the decree which

was passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.193 of

1982 dt.19-02-1994 and by virtue of modification of

interim orders on 02-09-2009 also Ac.21.00 gts of land was

already passed on to the unofficial respondents and they

have constructed houses.

12. Though the contention of the appellant

University contending that the State Government had no

power to issue G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2008, more so,

the suit preferred by Lingamaiah was dismissed against

the State Government, and the proper course would have

been that Lingamaiah and his legal heirs and persons of

claiming through Lingamaiah and his legal heirs ought to

have filed execution petition before the competent Civil

Court seeking execution of the decree is no doubt true and

correct. But in the present case, the State Government

had issued G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2008 at the instance

of appellant University and the appellant University had

passed resolutions in an Executive Committee agreeing in

principle for allotment of alternative land in favour of

decree holders and during the pendency of Writ Petition,

with the modification of interim orders, a large extent of

land i.e. Ac.21.00 gts was already passed on to the

unofficial respondents and at this point of time, this Court

is not inclined to interfere as the much water has flown

after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2008 and the

appellant University has not challenged the modified

interim order in an appeal nor the appellant had not

challenged the exchange deed dt.14-04-2014 before any

Court of law.

13. Therefore, at this point of time, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the orders of the learned Single

Judge and that the learned Single Judge has rightly

dismissed the Writ Petition with the following observation:

"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner University that in view of dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the unofficial respondents being W.P. No. 27316 of 2005, seeking implementation of the proposal of exchange of Acs.25-16 guntas for Acs.12-17 guntas on 30.12.2005, the unofficial respondents have to work out their remedies only in the civil Court does not deserve any merit and has to be rejected. The earlier writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the proposal of the University was already rejected by the Government by the time of hearing of Writ Petition. Another point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show that the land allotted to the University belongs to the University and that the State Government does not have any power for which proposition, the learned counsel has relied on is Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974. Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 reads as under:-

"Section 5: Powers of the University. The University shall have the following powers, namely:--

(1) to (22) xxx (omitted as not necessary)

(23) to receive donations and to acquire, hold, anage and dispose of any property, movable or

immmovable, including trust and endowment properties for the purposes of the University;"

Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 simply gives powers to the University to purchase, sell or do whatever they want in respect of the land which they are holding. There is absolutely no quarrel with the said proposition or the power of the University if any immovable property is purchased by the University is sought to be given away, exchanged or allotted to some other person or institution. But here is a case where the land has been allotted to the University vide letter D.O.No.3264/C1/74-II, dated 21.02.1975 with some conditions. The question as to whether they will have absolute right under the D.O. Letter, dated 21.02.1975 has to be gone into in appropriate case. With all due respect to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the facts in this Writ Petition are very peculiar and intrinsic to this case only, the University having suffered a decree and the same having become final, the reliance on Section 5 of the Act cannot be of much help. Therefore, the above argument is rejected. Once the University has sent another proposal, the same was accepted by the Government though not to the liking of the University and the impugned G.O. was issued. It is pertinent to note that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner University, as there is no decrease in the extent of land originally allotted to the University by virtue of the impugned G.O. As the University has got an equal extent of land from the unofficial respondents for which they are already having a decree, the

University cannot have any grievance with regard to the issuance of the impugned G.O. As culled out from the various instances enumerated above, the University having submitted a proposal to the Government for exchanging the land and seeking their permission to exchange the same cannot now contend that the Government does not have any say or authority to issue the impugned G.O. The Government, in its wisdom, has allotted an extent of Ac. 25-31 guntas of land in exchange for the land of Ac. 25-16 guntas belonging to the unofficial respondents duly taking into consideration the market value of both the lands and also that the same is at the corner of the University and no prejudice will be caused to the University, if the land of Ac.25-31 guntas is exchanged in lieu of Ac. 25-16 guntas in Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23.

For the forgoing discussions and the reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the challenge to the impugned G.O. issued by the Government exchanging the subject land to the unofficial respondents in lieu of the land of Acs.25.16 guntas is without any merits. The University having suffered the decree, which was also confirmed in the first appeal by this Court, now cannot turn around and contend that the claim of the unofficial respondents be confined to only to an extent of Acs.21-00 gunts and not for Acs.25.31 guntas. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the present order came to be passed and this order cannot be cited as a precedent. The Government should avoid allotting any parcels of land which have already been allotted to the University pursuant to the Cabinet decision and in furtherance of a policy decision, and to the best extent possible, safeguard the entire land which was originally allotted to the University. The Government should see that no land of the University is allowed to be encroached, allotted or anyway diminished and see that the original extent of land allotted to the University is preserved."

14. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court

is not inclined entertain the Writ Appeal and the same is

accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications,

if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 23.03.2022 kvr