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

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

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. 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

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.

extent 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

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

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

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.

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

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