Judgment :- The grievance of Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah Trust, the petitioner herein, is with regard to the manner in which the properties endowed by Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah for a charitable educational purpose are being used by the State. The original prayer put-forth by the Trust in the present writ petition was for a declaration simpliciter. However, the petitioner-Trust sought amendment of its prayer, which was permitted by this Court on 10.11.2008. Consequently, the prayer in the writ petition presently reads as follows: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to handover the land which belongs to the Trust of the petitioner and forbearing the respondents 4 to 7 from making any constructions in the lands belonging to the petitioner-Trust in Sy.No.776 and 778 admeasuring Ac.10-27 guntas situated at Suryapet and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are to the following effect: One Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah, a resident of Suryapet Town, endowed Ac.66-32 guntas of land in Suryapet in Nalgonda District, Ac.7-00 guntas of land by name Pedda Chenu and Ac.7-00 guntas of land by name Mudigondavari Manyam at Mangalapelli Revenue Village of Nandigama Taluq of Krishna District, in all Ac.80-32 guntas, through registered Will dated 21st August, 1954 for establishing a Degree College at Suryapet in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara and authorized the Government to fulfil his desire. The property endowed by him was registered in the books of Endowments in File No.5051/54/B9/1956 dated 29.01.1956 vide issue No.5054/54 dated 30.11.1956. On 01.04.1971 a notification was issued by the Endowments Department of the State calling for applications for appointment as Trustees of the subject Trust, and accordingly the Trust Board was formed on 15.05.1971. As on the date of the formation of the Trust Board, the property endowed by Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah situated at Suryapet was in the possession of the Agriculture Department of the State. As on the date of the formation of the Trust Board, the property endowed by Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah situated at Suryapet was in the possession of the Agriculture Department of the State. After the formation of the Trust Board, the Chairman of the Board addressed a letter to the Agriculture Department of the State to handover the land to enable the Trust to fulfil the desire of the donor. The Director, Agriculture Department, in turn, addressed letter dated 01.07.1971 to the Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department stating to the effect that the land in question admeasuring Ac.8-37 guntas in Sy.No.766 and Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.778 in Suryapet were required by the Agriculture Department for its own utilisation, indicating concurrence to handover the remaining extent to the petitioner-Trust. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide his letter dated 27.11.1971 clarified that all the properties endowed by the donor would belong to and vest in the institution and hence, the Agriculture Department could not assert any right of entitlement over a part of such property. He also clarified that the property which was required by the Agriculture Department could be leased out to it for a period not exceeding six years subject to the condition that the Agriculture Department delivered possession of such land thereafter to the Trust. The Deputy Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh under his Memo dated 30.05.1972 ordered the Director of Agriculture to deliver possession of the endowed property excluding the area of Ac.10-27 guntas ('sic' Ac.11-27 guntas) in Sy.Nos.766 and 778 so as to enable the Trust to establish the Degree College as desired by the donor. The District Collector, Nalgonda, basing on his spot inspection on 02.04.1974, also issued similar directions to the Tahsildar, Suryapet. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, Suryapet, handed over an extent of Ac.55-05 guntas of land on 30.04.1974, excluding the extent of Ac.8.37 guntas in Sy.No.766 and Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.778 which continued to be in the possession of the Agriculture Department. The petitioner-Trust established a Degree College by name Sri Venkateswara College upon the said property in accordance with law. The said College is affiliated to the Osmania University. The petitioner-Trust made several efforts since 1974 to retrieve the possession of the remaining land which was still with the Agriculture Department so that it could establish a vocational/agricultural school also. The petitioner-Trust established a Degree College by name Sri Venkateswara College upon the said property in accordance with law. The said College is affiliated to the Osmania University. The petitioner-Trust made several efforts since 1974 to retrieve the possession of the remaining land which was still with the Agriculture Department so that it could establish a vocational/agricultural school also. It was also intended that a B.Ed. College for Women should be established and the land occupied by the Agriculture Department was perceived to be best suited for this purpose. Attempts made by the State to purchase part of the endowed property were also spurned by the petitioner-Trust. By its letter dated 18.06.1977, the petitioner-Trust expressed its willingness to pay compensation to the Agriculture Department for the buildings constructed by it, by duly adjusting the same as against the lease amount which was due to the Trust from the Agriculture Department. The Agriculture Department did not make any payment towards rentals in respect of its occupation over the endowed land. This fact is evident from the letters dated 17.09.1990 and 13.07.1990 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department to the Agriculture Department. A perusal of the said letters would show that the Endowments Department called upon the Agriculture Department to handover the land encroached by it for which it had not paid any rents to the Trust, failing which the Endowments Department threatened legal action. While so, the Agriculture Department applied to the Suryapet Municipality for undertaking construction of buildings in the endowed land. When the petitioner-Trust objected to the same, the Municipality by its letter dated 12.06.1997 refused to grant permission to the Agriculture Department. However, as the Agriculture Department was continuing to proceed with the construction, reflecting its intention to perpetuate its possession over the endowed land, the petitioner-Trust had no option but to approach this Court. By interim order dated 07.07.1997, this Court restrained the respondents from proceeding with the construction in Sy.Nos.776 and 778 at Suryapet, Nalgonda District. The said order was made absolute on 03.02.1998 and was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.371 of 1998, by order dated 18.03.1998. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the District Collector, Nalgonda District, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Farmer Training Centre, Suryapet, Nalgonda District and the Joint Director of Agriculture (ANTWA), Office of the Director of Agriculture, L.B.Stadium, Hyderabad, the 2nd, 4th and 6th respondents in the writ petition. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the District Collector, Nalgonda District, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Farmer Training Centre, Suryapet, Nalgonda District and the Joint Director of Agriculture (ANTWA), Office of the Director of Agriculture, L.B.Stadium, Hyderabad, the 2nd, 4th and 6th respondents in the writ petition. The deponent to this counter affidavit is the 4th respondent. It is contended therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as it pertains to a civil dispute, which has to be agitated before a Civil Court. While admitting the factum of the endowment of the landed properties by Late Sri Amarvadi Venkata Narsaiah for an identified charitable educational purpose, it is stated that as per the correspondence between the Government Departments it was finally settled that the Agriculture Department should retain the lands admeasuring Ac.8-37 guntas in Sy.No.766 and Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.778 as they were being utilised by the Agriculture Department for an educational purpose as desired by the donor. It is stated that a Committee by name Sri Venkateswara Krishi Vidyalaya Samiti was formed for the purpose of establishing an Agriculture Training Institute at Suryapet in the subject land and the Government had sanctioned a grant of Rs.40,000/-for this purpose in the year 1958. As the Committee failed to establish the Institute in spite of the lapse of several years, the grant was resumed by the Government and a scheme was sanctioned for establishment of a Vocational Agricultural School under the Department of Agriculture vide G.O.Ms.No.1300/F&A dated 29.04.1964. The District Collector, Nalgonda, was requested by the Deputy Secretary to Government under letter dated 29.05.1964 to retain the subject land, so that it could be used by the Agriculture Department for the purpose of establishing the said Agricultural School. It is in this background, according to these respondents, that an extent of Ac.68.10 cents of land was handed over to the Agriculture Department on 20.06.1964. The Vocational Agricultural School is said to have been established during the year 1964-1965 and the Agriculture Department claims to have spent a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- in this regard. It is stated that the school is imparting training to the farmers of Telangana Region and also to Ex-Military Personnel who had taken up agriculture after their retirement from service. The Vocational Agricultural School is said to have been established during the year 1964-1965 and the Agriculture Department claims to have spent a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- in this regard. It is stated that the school is imparting training to the farmers of Telangana Region and also to Ex-Military Personnel who had taken up agriculture after their retirement from service. According to these respondents, as the desire of the donor that the lands should be utilised for an educational purpose was fulfilled, there is no illegality in the Agriculture Department retaining the subject land. It is stated that after formation of the petitioner-Trust, the Agriculture Department handed over an extent of Ac.57-23 guntas of land to it, while retaining the subject land. Thus, even after the establishment of the degree college in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara, a vast extent of vacant land was still available with the petitioner-Trust which could be utilised for establishing new colleges as desired by the petitioner-Trust. The counter-affidavit also details various programmes being undertaken by the Agriculture Department by utilising the subject land and it is reiterated that such activities being in furtherance of education of the farmers, fulfil the essential desire of the donor as evidenced by his Will dated 21st August, 1954. It is admitted that the Agriculture Department was undertaking construction of new buildings in pursuance of a grant obtained from the Netherlands Government. However, the counter is silent with regard to the obtaining of a building permission from the municipal authorities in this regard. In its reply-affidavit, the petitioner-Trust stated that it was not open to the Agriculture Department to unilaterally claim that it was settled that the subject land would be retained by it. It is asserted that the petitioner-Trust never agreed to surrender the subject land. It is stated that Sri Venkateswara Krishi Vidhyalaya Samithi had nothing to do with the petitioner-Trust or its property. It is reiterated that the desire of the donor was to establish Colleges in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara and that the Trust was formed only to fulfil this desire. It is also stated that it is the obligation of the Government to see that the entire land which was endowed by the donor was handed over to the Trust, including the subject land retained by the Agriculture Department, so that the same could be utilized for that purpose. It is also stated that it is the obligation of the Government to see that the entire land which was endowed by the donor was handed over to the Trust, including the subject land retained by the Agriculture Department, so that the same could be utilized for that purpose. The Agriculture Department, according to the petitioner-Trust, is only in permissive possession of the subject land and could not assert any rights adverse to the interest of the petitioner-Trust. It is also stated that it is not for the Agriculture Department to advise the Trust as to how the Trust property should be utilized for achieving the objective of the donor. Stating so, the petitioner-Trust prayed that the writ petition be allowed. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner-Trust filed WPMP No.2803 of 2008 in this writ petition seeking to bring on record subsequent events and certain additional material papers. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the Petitioner-Trust stated to the effect that the Agriculture Department was not using the subject land for the purpose of its Farmer Training Centre or Demonstration Farm. According to the Petitioner-Trust, after acquisition of an extent of Ac.4-06 guntas by the Government for the purpose of establishing a hospital, the remaining extent was insufficient for the Agriculture Department to operate its Farmer Training Programmes and Demonstration Farm. It is further stated that the Agriculture Department had established a new centre at Nakrekal for the purpose of conducting its Farmer Training Programmes. This Centre is said to have been inaugurated on 08.01.2000. Reference is also made to the fact that another extent of Ac.10-00 guntas out of the endowed land had been acquired by the Government for running a Polytechnic College. Photographs are filed along with the petition to show that the subject land was not being utilised and was in a state of disrepair. The Agriculture Department filed a counter-affidavit to this application contesting on merits the claims put-forth by the Petitioner-Trust. The Department asserted that it had been in possession of the subject land for more than fifty years and had been using the same for imparting training to the farmers and ex-servicemen who had taken up agriculture. It is admitted that the administrative offices of the Agriculture Department were also located in a portion of the subject land. The Department asserted that it had been in possession of the subject land for more than fifty years and had been using the same for imparting training to the farmers and ex-servicemen who had taken up agriculture. It is admitted that the administrative offices of the Agriculture Department were also located in a portion of the subject land. It is asserted that classes were being regularly held for the farmers and training programmes were also being conducted for the benefit of Mandal Agricultural Officers. Copies of certain proceedings and photographs were filed along with this counter-affidavit in support of this contention. Sri K. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Trust, vehemently contended that late Sri Amaravadi Venkata Narsaiah had endowed his properties to the State with the obligation that the State would utilise the same for establishing educational institutions in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara and that it was not open to the State to misuse the land so endowed, by appropriating it for its own use. He relied upon the proceedings of the District Collector, Nalgonda, bearing No.D2/292/72 dated 02.04.1974, wherein the District Collector, Nalgonda, stated to the effect that the Agriculture Department had no business to be in occupation of the subject land. It is also stated that out of the entire extent of Ac.11-27 guntas which was retained by the Agriculture Department, an extent of Ac.4-06 guntas in Sy.No.766 had been acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereby, the remaining extent still retained by the Agriculture Department dwindled to Ac.7-21 guntas. It is pointed out that as regards the acquired extent, the Land Acquisition Compensation was also paid to the petitioner Trust, clearly evidencing that it alone had right, title and ownership over the subject land. It is also asserted that the Agriculture Department had not made any payments whatsoever towards lease rentals for its occupation of the subject land to the petitioner-Trust. The attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the Statement of Endowment available in the Office of the Tahsil (Suryapet Taluk), Nalgonda District, clearly demonstrates that the landed property endowed comprised the entire extent of land admeasuring Ac.80-32 guntas donated by Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah under his Will dated 21st August, 1954. The attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the Statement of Endowment available in the Office of the Tahsil (Suryapet Taluk), Nalgonda District, clearly demonstrates that the landed property endowed comprised the entire extent of land admeasuring Ac.80-32 guntas donated by Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah under his Will dated 21st August, 1954. It is pointed out that the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Farmer Training Centre, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, the 4th respondent, cannot be construed to be a counter on behalf of the Endowments Department. On the other hand, Sri G. Manohar, the learned counsel representing the Agriculture Department, contended that under the Will dated 21.08.1954, the donor had bequeathed his properties to the State of Hyderabad giving it full power over the land, including the power of alienation. According to him, the State had the power to sell the endowed land in it's entirety, so long as the objective of the donation, i.e. establishment of a College at Suryapet in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara was achieved. He further contended that most of the land endowed by the donor was still available with the petitioner-Trust and pointed out that a Degree College had also been established in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara as desired by the donor. This, according to the learned counsel, fulfilled the obligation visited upon the State by the donor. He drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 29.05.1964 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department to the District Collector, Nalgonda District, whereby the entire extent of land endowed by the donor was directed to be placed at the disposal of the Agriculture Department for establishing the Agricultural School sanctioned by the Government. He also relied upon the letter dated 30.05.1972 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department, to the Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, permitting the delivery of possession of the endowed land, excluding the area of Ac.10.67 cents falling in Survey Nos.767 and 778 of Suryapet, which was in the possession of the Agriculture Department, so as to enable the petitioner-Trust to establish a Degree College pursuant to the wishes of the donor. It is contended that instead of fulfilling the donor's desire through its own action, the State had constituted the petitioner-Trust, which, in turn, had established the Degree College as desired by the donor. It is contended that instead of fulfilling the donor's desire through its own action, the State had constituted the petitioner-Trust, which, in turn, had established the Degree College as desired by the donor. According to the learned counsel, once the wish of the donor was fulfilled by the establishment of the College, it was open to the State to use the remaining land for a public purpose. According to him, the Agriculture Department was utilising the subject land retained by it for operating a Farmer Training Center, Demonstration Farm and also for housing its Offices. In reply, the learned senior counsel contended that merely because the donor had expressly permitted the alienation of the land endowed by him for achieving the objective, it did not confer any special power upon the Trustee. According to him, Section 74 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1966') equivalent to Section 80 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1987') authorized the alienation of the property endowed with the prior permission of the Commissioner of Endowments. The said alienation must necessarily be for the purpose of achieving the objective of the Trust. The learned senior counsel asserted that the properties endowed by the donor vested in the petitioner-Trust, which was under an obligation to utilize the same for the sole purpose of carrying out the desire of the Endower. According to the learned senior counsel, as the obligation which had been visited upon the State was transferred to the petitioner-Trust, the State no longer retained any right to sell or utilize the endowed land thereafter, according to its own whims and fancies. Further, the mere fact that a College had already been established in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara did not mean that it was open to the State to use the rest of the land for its own purposes. It is pointed out that the letters addressed by the Endowments Department clearly evidenced the stand taken by the said Department, which was in favour of the petitioner-Trust. The learned senior counsel contended that as no independent counter affidavit had been filed by the said Department, its stance as reflected in its correspondence filed as material papers, should be taken note of by this Court. The learned senior counsel contended that as no independent counter affidavit had been filed by the said Department, its stance as reflected in its correspondence filed as material papers, should be taken note of by this Court. It is pointed out that an extent of 10 acres in Survey No.765 of Suryapet which formed part of the endowed land was acquired by the Government for running a Polytechnic College and compensation was paid to the petitioner-Trust. This fact is brought out to demonstrate that there is a paucity of land, insofar as the petitioner-Trust is concerned, for establishing new Colleges and further to rebut the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Agriculture Department that after the establishment of the Degree College by the petitioner-Trust, the remaining land was free for utilization as desired by the State. It is contended that had it been so, it was not necessary for the Government to resort to acquisition of this land. It is reiterated that under the will deed, the donor specifically intended that the lands endowed by him should only be utilized for the purpose specified, i.e. establishment of an educational institution in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara. The learned senior counsel stated that the petitioner-Trust wanted to establish a B.Ed. College in the subject land and had also obtained necessary permission from the University in this regard. He concluded by stating that the Agriculture Department had no manner of right to continue in possession of the subject land and that the writ petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for. The seventh respondent in this writ petition is the contractor engaged by the Agriculture Department for making constructions in the subject land. In view of the orders passed by this Court restraining such construction activity, it is manifest that the seventh respondent ceased to have further interest in this matter. The issue for consideration in the present case is whether the Agriculture Department is legally entitled to retain possession of the subject land, be it for an educational or any other purpose, in the light of the specific endowment created by Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah under his Will dated 21.08.1954. Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narasaiah, being the donor of the endowed properties, created a charitable and religious endowment in as much as he desired that an educational institution be established with the use of his property. Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narasaiah, being the donor of the endowed properties, created a charitable and religious endowment in as much as he desired that an educational institution be established with the use of his property. The said endowment also had religious overtones as he desired that the educational institution should be named after Lord Sri Venkateswara. As held by the Supreme Court in T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION V/s. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1 (2002) 8 SCC 481 ), Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India allows all persons of any religious denomination to set up an institution for a charitable purpose, and undisputedly the advancement of education is a charitable purpose. Therefore, the exercise of his fundamental right by Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narsaiah has to be given full effect and the State, being the trustee of this obligation, is bound to implement the duty cast upon it under the Will dated 21.08.1954 in its true letter and spirit. A perusal of the registered will bearing document No.9 of 1954 dated 21.08.1954 would show that it was the desire of the testator, Late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narasaiah, that the endowed landed property admeasuring Ac.80.32 guntas should be utilised for the purpose of establishing an educational institution at Suryapet in the name of Sri Venkateswara Swamy. The said document is in Telugu but the import thereof is as narrated above. It is quite clear from the language and phraseology used in the document that it was the testator's desire that the land endowed by him should be used in it's entirety for the purpose of achieving his desire, viz., the establishment of an educational institution in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara. There is no permission, explicit or otherwise, permitting the State of Hyderabad to appropriate part of the endowed property to its own use after achieving the objective of the donor. The argument advanced on behalf of the Agriculture Department that upon the establishment of such an institution, the desire of the testator would stand fulfilled, thereby leaving it open to the State which had been endowed with the obligation under the Will, to use the remaining land as it thought fit does not find favour with this Court. Such was not the intention expressed by the donor in his will dated 21.08.1954. Such was not the intention expressed by the donor in his will dated 21.08.1954. The properties in question, including the subject lands, were endowed to the Government with a specific obligation as is evidenced by the will dated 21.08.1954. Is it, then, open to the State to ignore such an obligation and utilise or appropriate the land for its own purposes? The State, having been placed under this moral duty under the Will dated 21.08.1954, itself created a Trust duly registering the same in the year 1956. The Statement of Endowment dated 30.11.1956 evidences the fact that the entire extent of Ac.80.32 guntas endowed by the testator was handed over to the trust, being the Endowments Department of the State. The object of the Endower is also indicated, being as per the will dated 21.08.1954, for the construction of a College at Suryapet town. The subsequent proceeding dated 15.05.1971 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, constituted the petitioner-Trust Board under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1966. It is also relevant to note that the Commissioner, Endowments Department, addressed letter dated 29.07.1971 to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department pointing out that as per Section 14 of the Act of 1966, equivalent to Section 14 of the Act of 1987, all the properties belonging to or given or endowed to institution would vest in the said institution and hence, the Agriculture Department could not continue in possession of such trust property. It was also stated that in the event of the Agriculture Department requiring the said land the same may be leased out to it for a period of six years at a reasonable rent subject to the condition that the land would be returned to the Trust Board after the expiry of the lease period. This letter was written as long back as in the year 1971 stating that the Agriculture Department could at the most continue in possession for a period of six years in the capacity of a lessee. A resolution appears to have been passed on 25.03.1974 by the Petitioner Trust in this regard agreeing to lease the land to the Agriculture Department for a period of six years. Three and a half decades have passed and the Agriculture Department of the State still remains in occupation, free of cost! A resolution appears to have been passed on 25.03.1974 by the Petitioner Trust in this regard agreeing to lease the land to the Agriculture Department for a period of six years. Three and a half decades have passed and the Agriculture Department of the State still remains in occupation, free of cost! Unfortunately, the Endowments Department did not think it fit to enter appearance before this Court and make known its stand by way of a counter. However the correspondence addressed by the Endowments Department referred hereinabove throws ample light on its stance vis--vis the Agriculture Department, during the stage of inter-departmental correspondence. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner-Trust Board was created under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1966 and as per Section 15(7) of the Act of 1966, equivalent to Section 17(6) of the Act of 1987, all properties belonging to the charitable institutions/ endowments, which on the date of commencement of the Act were in the possession of or under the superintendence of the Government or any organization, institution or other person appointed by the Government, shall, on the date on which the Board of Trustees is constituted, stand transferred to such Board of Trustees. In the light of this statutory provision, it is clear that whatever properties had been endowed by late Sri Amarawadi Venkata Narasaiah under his registered will deed dated 21.08.1954 and were in the possession of the Government or its representative as on the date of the coming into force of the Act of 1966, stood transferred to the Board created under Section 15 of the Act of 1966 vide the proceedings dated 15.05.1971, that is, the petitioner-Trust. It is therefore not open to the State, be it the Endowments Department or the Agriculture Department, to contend that a part of the property so endowed remained with it and could be utilised by it for an educational or any other public purpose. It is not the case of the Agriculture Department that it is operating any educational institution in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara as desired by the donor and further, after the creation of the petitioner-Trust, it is for the petitioner-Trust alone to take steps to achieve this objective. Such a right or obligation did not survive in the Government or its Departments after the creation of the Petitioner-Trust. Such a right or obligation did not survive in the Government or its Departments after the creation of the Petitioner-Trust. The State having transferred its obligation by creating the petitioner-Trust, no longer retained with itself the right to appropriate the land endowed by the donor for its own use. This fact is exemplified by the fact that the State took recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when it wanted to appropriate part of the endowed land for a public purpose. The State was, thus, aware of its limitations in so far as the endowed land was concerned. Even if it were to be accepted for the sake of argument that the State, being the original holder of the trust under the donor's Will, could continue to exercise powers over the endowed properties, it must be remembered that the donor himself had placed certain restrictions upon such exercise of powers. Though widest powers were conferred under the Will dated 21.08.1954, including the power of alienation, the same were subject to the condition that the properties so endowed would be used only to achieve the objective and desire of the donor. The occupation of the subject land by the Agriculture Department of the State for the purpose of housing its offices incidentally, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be in furtherance of attaining the donor's objective and desire. All the more so as such occupation by the Agriculture Department is gratuitous and no benefit whatsoever is accruing to the petitioner-Trust for furthering the donor's desire. The stand put forth by the Agriculture Department is therefore found to be utterly untenable. In this regard, this Court also draws support from the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In PALANIVELAYUTHAM PILLAI V/s. RAMACHANDRAN (2000) 6 SCC 151 ), the Supreme Court was seized of a case where the donor having endowed his properties to a temple under a gift deed, entrusted the management of the properties to his wife and her heirs. The Supreme Court held that the mere right of management as a trustee did not confer any proprietary right in the property donated to the temple. The Supreme Court held that the mere right of management as a trustee did not confer any proprietary right in the property donated to the temple. The Supreme Court held that the grantee of such special endowment derives his or her right of management from the appointment by the settlor and could not be treated to be having independent proprietary right in the subject matter of the grant. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the State having been placed under an obligation by the donor, cannot claim independent proprietary rights in respect of the endowed properties, in excess of or over and above what was bestowed upon it under the Will dated 21.08.1954. The stand of the Agriculture Department that the State had such rights must therefore be rejected. In SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR V/s. SOM NATH DASS ( 2000(4) SCC 146 ), the Supreme Court spelt out the scope of the term 'endowment'. According to the Supreme Court, an endowment is created when the donor parts with his property for it being used for a public purpose and its entrustment is to a person or group of persons in trust for carrying out the objective of such entrustment. Once an endowment is so made, it is final and it is irrevocable. It is the onerous duty of the persons entrusted with such endowment, to carry out the objectives of such entrustment. They may appoint a manager in the absence of any indication in the trust or get it appointed through court. In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a fact situation where the obligation created by the endowment was not performed even after a lapse of forty years. The Supreme Court, while holding as above, rejected the claim put-forth by the descendants of the trustees to knock away the endowed property. It was specifically held that no part of the rights created under the endowment could be claimed or usurped by the trustees. The Supreme Court, while holding as above, rejected the claim put-forth by the descendants of the trustees to knock away the endowed property. It was specifically held that no part of the rights created under the endowment could be claimed or usurped by the trustees. In the light of the principles culled out by the Supreme Court in the above decision, it is manifest that the State being the original trustee under the Will dated 21.08.1954 could not have betrayed such trust and it is not open to the Agriculture Department, claiming through such trustee, to assert any rights over the subject lands in variance with the objective of the endowment. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in MENAKURU DASARATHARAMI REDDY v. DUDDUKURU SUBBA RAO ( AIR 1957 SC 797 ), wherein the Court observed as hereunder: "......... Now it is clear that dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to, and follows, the property, which retains its original private and secular character. Whether or not a dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document. In such cases it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties; it is obvious that such intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. The use of the word 'trust' or 'trustee' is no doubt of some help in determining such intention; but the mere use of such words cannot be treated as decisive of the matter. Is the private title over the property intended to be completely extinguished? Is the title in regard to the property intended to be completely transferred to the charity? The answer to these questions can be found not by concentrating on the significance of the use of the word 'trustee' or 'trust' alone but by gathering the true intent of the document considered as a whole. Is the title in regard to the property intended to be completely transferred to the charity? The answer to these questions can be found not by concentrating on the significance of the use of the word 'trustee' or 'trust' alone but by gathering the true intent of the document considered as a whole. In some cases where documents purport to dedicate property in favour of public charity, provision is made for the maintenance of the worshipper who may be a member of the family of the original owner of the property himself and in such cases the question often arises whether the provision for the maintenance of the manager or the worshipper from the income of the property indicates an intention that the property should retain its original character and should merely be burdened with an obligation in favour of the charity. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication. It is naturally difficult to lay down a general rule for the solution of the problem. Each case must be considered on its facts and the intention of the parties must be determined on reading the document as a whole." The above Judgment was quoted and relied upon by the Supreme Court in its later decision in S. SHANMUGAM PILLAI v. K.SHANMUGAM PILLAI (1973) 2 SCC 312 ). Applying the distillate of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court above, the Will dated 21.08.1954 does not leave any scope for doubt that it was the intention of the testator that his landed properties, comprising Ac.80.32 guntas, should be used only for the purpose of establishing an educational institution in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara. Applying the distillate of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court above, the Will dated 21.08.1954 does not leave any scope for doubt that it was the intention of the testator that his landed properties, comprising Ac.80.32 guntas, should be used only for the purpose of establishing an educational institution in the name of Lord Sri Venkateswara. There is no whisper of any entitlement being created in the State to utilise or appropriate any part of the endowed property for any other purpose. The Agriculture Department therefore does not have any manner of right to continue in possession of the subject land. Its possession over the subject land for the past several decades is also without authority of law as is evidenced by the fact that it did not even choose to don the mantle of a lessee. It is not denied that the Agriculture Department did not come forward to make lease rental payments to the petitioner-Trust for its utilization and exploitation of the subject land all these years. On a conspectus of the above factual and legal matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Agriculture Department has no semblance of a right recognized by law to continue its possession over the subject land. One other aspect remains to be considered. It is the contention of the Agriculture Department that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Agriculture Department would have it that the petitioner-Trust is raising a civil dispute which would be more amenable to adjudication before the competent civil Court. This Court, having considered the material on record, is of the view that there is practically no dispute, so to say, as to the lack of entitlement of the Agriculture Department to retain possession of the subject land. This is a case pure and simple, where the State having been placed under an obligation by the endower failed to implement it in its true letter and spirit and the Agriculture Department, being the beneficiary of such failure, is in the nature of an illegal occupant of the subject land. It has no manner of a right to assert in support of its occupation, however long it may have been. Further, the State, the model citizen, cannot resort to dilatory tactics. It has no manner of a right to assert in support of its occupation, however long it may have been. Further, the State, the model citizen, cannot resort to dilatory tactics. The stand taken by the Agriculture Department of the State is obviously with the intention of taking advantage of the delays which are inbuilt in the litigation process entailed by approaching the civil Court. By such tactics, the Agriculture Department of the State wishes to perpetuate and prolong its illegal occupation over the subject land. Such tactics, which would be frowned upon in a common litigant are all the more unbecoming when they are used by the State. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Agriculture Department in this regard is mentioned only to be rejected. In MORAN M. BASELIOSMARTHOMA MATHEWS II V/s. STATE OF KERALA (2007) 6 SCC 517 ) the Supreme Court, while observing that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution no doubt exercised plenary power, remarked that certain limitations in regard thereto were well accepted. The Supreme Court stated that save and except for good reasons, the High Court would not entertain a matter involving a private law remedy. In that case the High Court had exercised writ jurisdiction in a matter involving disputed questions of title and in that context, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court had committed a manifest error in going into disputed questions of title as also disputed questions with regard to rights of a particular group to manage the Churches. Reliance was placed therein upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in P.R. MURLIDHARAN V/s. SWAMI DHARAMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR (2006) 4 SCC 501 ) wherein it was observed that a writ proceeding could not be a substitute for a civil suit and that the wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. In the present case, as pointed out herein above, there is no dispute worth the mention with regard to the entitlement to possession of the subject land in so far as the petitioner-Trust is concerned. The ploy being adopted by the Agriculture Department of the State in insinuating that the matter involves a civil dispute, more suitable for redressal before a civil Court, is not founded on any legal basis. The ploy being adopted by the Agriculture Department of the State in insinuating that the matter involves a civil dispute, more suitable for redressal before a civil Court, is not founded on any legal basis. Such an attempt, fatuous as it is, must be recognized as such and condemned. This would therefore be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the fact that the relief granted is in the nature of a private law remedy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the Agriculture Department has no entitlement whatsoever to continue in possession of the subject land. Consequently, there shall be a direction to respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6 to deliver the possession of the land admeasuring Ac.7-21 guntas in Sy.Nos.766 and 778 in Suryapet, Nalgonda District, to the petitioner-Trust. Keeping in mind the fact that the Agriculture Department has been in possession of the land for several decades, it is appropriate that reasonable time should be given to the Department to set right its affairs and vacate the premises. The respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6 are accordingly granted six months time to vacate the subject land. Needless to state, the Agriculture Department shall take away all its equipment, machinery, construction material etc. installed in the subject land and thereafter handover vacant physical possession of the same to the petitioner-Trust. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.