Telangana High Court

Boila Venkateswar Rao, vs The State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

          WRIT PETITION No.17473 of 2020

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of

the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not returning the land

admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in

Sy.No.640/AA situated at Tallagudem Village,

Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District, to the petitoner

as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing for the respondents.

[[

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has donated the subject land in

favour of the respondents for specific purpose of

construction of Junior College at Thallagudem in the

year, 2003 by way of Razinama in Form-C under

A.P.(Telangana Area) and L.R.Rules, 1951. The

SK, J W.P.No.17473 of 2020

respondent authorities have accepted the same and

promised to construct the Junior College in the subject

land for the students of Tallagudem Village as well as

nearby villages. He submits that as the respondents

have not complied with the specific condition and they

have constructed the Junior College at some other

place, the petitioner made application to the

respondent No.2-District Collector on 20.02.2010, but

no action has been taken.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that once the property was gifted by way of

Razinama and its condition is not complied with, the

landlord is having every right to withdraw the same

and as per Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana

Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951, the registered holder

is entitled to withdraw Razinama by submitting an

application.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that after filing of the representation of the

SK, J

petitoner, the respondent No.5 has addressed a letter

to the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.B/1415/02

dated 16.12.2010 stating that the Government Junior

College was constructed in Kamepalli village

instead of Tallagudem Village and the land donated by

the petitoner is free from encroachment and lying

vacant and as no relinquishment orders have been

passed so far, he requested to accord permission to

return back the land of the petitioner as he is a poor

person and having no other land for his livelihood. He

further submits that in spite of said letter, the

respondent No.2 has not taken any action to re-convey

the land to the petitoner.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitoner further submits

that the petitoner is not a big landlord and despite

passing of more than a decade and despite several

requests, the respondents failed to return the subject

land to the petitoner and in view of the same, the

petitoner filed the instant writ petition and requested

SK, J

to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents

to return the said land to the petitioner.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of

his contentions has relied on the following Judgment:

1. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi Vs. P.Bhagya Laxmi1

2. Aginati Ravi Kumar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad2.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent

No.4 submits that the petitioner has not specifically

stated in whose favour the alleged donation of subject

land by way of gift was made and the document

executed by him. He submits that the petitioner has

submitted Razinama Form-C for relinquishment under

Rule 16 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land

Revenue Rules, 1951 and the same was accepted and

1 2017 SCC Online Mad 33945

22024 SCC Online TS 4042

SK, J

the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamepally, has issued

directions to the then Panchayat Secretary, Khammam

vide Memo No.B/1415/2002 dated 01.07.2003 to

make necessary entries in the village pahani under

Rule 17 of Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Rules, 1951

and in view of the said proceedings, the land is vested

with the Government from the date of accepting the

Razinama and as per the revenue records, the land is

being treated as Government land and lying vacant

and there is no right to restore back the said land. He

further submits that the Junior College was

constructed in Kamepalli Village and the revenue

authorities have allotted the land admeasuring to an

extent of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.640 for village park

under Palle Prakruthi Vanam Program and the revenue

officials have handed over the same to the Gram

Panchayat on 21.09.2020 and the Gram Panchayat

has developed the subject land as park. He further

submits that there are no records available pertaining

SK, J

to the subject land and the petitioner also has not filed

the alleged gift and in view of the same, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the

record, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner is owner of land admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.640/AA situated at Tallagudem

Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District and

there is no dispute about the ownership of the

petitioner in respect of the said land. For construction

of Junior College at Tallagudem village as well as

nearby villages, the petitioner has relinquished his

right in the subject land in the year, 2003 and the

same would reveal from the Memo Rc.No.B/1415/2002

dated 01.07.2003 issued by the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Kamepally and also the letter addressed by the

respondent No.5 to the respondent No.2 in

Rc.No.B/1415/02 dated 16.12.2010.

SK, J

10. The petitioner has donated the subject land by

way of Razinama in Form-C under Rule-16 of the Land

Revenue Rules, 1951 for specific purpose of

construction of Junior College. But the respondent-

authorities have not constructed the Junior College in

the donated land and constructed at another village i.e,

Kamepalli and therefore the petitioner has made

representation to the respondents on 20.02.2010 for

restoration of patta in respect of their donated land in

Sy.No.640/A. In response to the same, the respondent

No.5 has addressed a letter Rc.No.B/1415/02

dated 16.12.2010 to the respondent No.2 and the

relevant portion is as follows:-

"I invite kind attention to the reference cited and submit that Sri Bollu Venkateswarlu R/o.Tallagudem H/o. Kamepalli (V) of Kamepalli Mandal has submitted an application to donate the land in Tallagudem H/o.Kamepalli Village Sy.No.640/AA Acrs.3-00 gts for the construction of Government Junior College. Accordingly the changes have been made in the village pahani occupant column has been filled as Government Junior College.

Further it is submitted that Sri Ramreddy Venkat Reddy Hon'ble MLA the then Sujathanagar Constituency present Hon'ble Minister and the public of Kamepalli Mandal have represented to construct the said college in Kamepalli Mandal Head Quarters and Sri Dammalapati Rangaiah and Seshaiah have given consent to donate land in Sy.No.354 and 355 over an extent of Acrs:3-00 in Kamepalli Mandal Headquarters. Accordingly the pattedars have submitted land

SK, J

razinama papers and the District Collector, Khammam accorded permission to handover the land to the Principal Government Junior College, Kamepalli. The building is also constructed and running in the said building.

Sri Bollu Venkateswarlu in his application 4th cited has requested for return back of the land since because the college was not constructed.

In this connection I submit that the land is free from encroachment and lying vacant and as no relinquishment orders have been passed so far, I therefore request to accord permission return back the land to the applicant as he is a poor person and having no other land for his livelihood".

11. In the counter, the respondents have stated that

the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts in

Sy.No.640 was allotted to village park under Palle

Prakruthi Vanam Programme and as the revenue

authorities have handed over the same to the Gram

Panchayat on 21.09.2020, the Gram Panchayat has

developed the subject land as park. Once the petitioner

has donated the land for specific purpose and the

respondent No.5 has addressed letter to the respondent

No.2 for return/re-convey the land to the petitoner as

the same was not utilized for specific purpose, without

taking any appropriate action basing on the

representation of the petitioner, now the land was

SK, J

allotted for other purpose. The contention of the

respondents that the subject land was allotted for other

purpose and the petitioner has no right to seek re-

convey the land cannot be accepted and the same is

arbitrary and illegal. If the petitoner's land was

acquired by the respondent authorities under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 the petitoner has no right to ask

for re-convey the land.

12. The petitioner has donated his land for specific

purpose i.e. for construction of Junior College, but the

respondents have not utilized the said land and it is

vacant. If the respondents want to utilize the donated

land for other purpose, they have to inform the same to

the petitioner and if the petitioner has not given

consent, they have to reconvey the land to him.

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied

on the Judgment of Madras High Court in Tahsildar's

case (supra 1) squarely apply to the instant case. The

SK, J

relevant portion 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

SK, J

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.

14. Following the above Judgment, this Court has

recently allowed the writ petition in Aginati Ravi

Kumar's case (supra 2).

15. In the instant case, the respondents have not

utilized the gifted land for the purpose for which it was

gifted. As per the letter dated 16.12.2010, the

respondent No.5 seeks permission of the respondent

No.2 to return back the subject land to the petitioner

as he is a poor person and having no other land for his

livelihood and as the subject land was not utilized for

the purpose of construction of Junior College.

16. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is