Judgment : This writ petition is filed by the State Bank of India Institute of Rural Development, questioning the validity of the order, dated 31.07.2008, passed in Proceedings No.B/255/1991, by the Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre) of Seri Lingampalli Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, ordering for resumption of 10 acres of land from its possession, purportedly in exercise of power under Rule 6 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Revenue Rules 1975. 2. The State Bank of India is a Statutory body under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The State Bank of India Institute of Rural Development is an institute started by the State Bank of India. The institute is established for the purpose of training the officers of the Bank for rural banking. As stated in the affidavit, it is the only premier institution of such nature in the country, started by State Bank of India, which is implementing the policies and programs of the Government of India through banking industry. 3. With a view to construct a training complex in Hyderabad, they approached through their Chief General Manager of local head office, Hyderabad, seeking transfer of land admeasuring Ac.57.11 gts., situated in Sy.No.26 of Gachi Bowli village of Rajendranagar Taluq in Ranga Reddy District, on an outright purchase basis at market value. In view of the claim for transfer of the land, reports were called for from the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The Collector sent his report on 10.07.1980 and 22.09.1980 and further recommendations were made by the Commissioner of Land Revenue vide his letter, dated 27th of August 1980, and basing on the same, Government issued Memo No.1291/P.1/80-2, dated 28.11.1980, directing the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to handover possession to the petitioner to an extent of Ac.57.11 gts. in Sy.No.26 of Gachibowli village. The consideration is arrived at based on the market value and fixed at Rs.3,43,650/-and the same was paid by the petitioner on 4th December 1980 for the entire allotted land of Ac.57.11 gts. The land allotted for transfer was Ac.57.11 gts., but at the time of delivery of possession, respondents noticed that the available land on ground is only Ac.47.11 gts. and the same was transferred to the petitioner on 18th February 1981. The land allotted for transfer was Ac.57.11 gts., but at the time of delivery of possession, respondents noticed that the available land on ground is only Ac.47.11 gts. and the same was transferred to the petitioner on 18th February 1981. Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.498, Revenue (P) Department, dated 24.03.1981, for transfer of the aforesaid land to the petitioner-institute. 4. Earlier, petitioner was issued notice by the 5th respondent on 31st January 2008 in Proceedings No.B/255/1991, directing the petitioner to hand over possession of 10 acres of land in Sy.No.26 of Gachibowli village, alleging that the same was vacant and was not used for the purpose for which it was allotted. The said notice was subject matter of challenge before this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2008 of 2008. The earlier notice was questioned primarily on the ground that without giving any opportunity and prior show cause notice, straightaway the impugned notice therein was issued. Accepting the plea of the petitioner-institute, the earlier writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order, dated 5th February 2008. In the said order, it is observed that it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 5. After disposal of earlier writ petition in W.P.No.2008 of 2008, the 5th respondent-Tahsildar issued notice, dated 10.03.2008, in proceedings No.B/255/1991, to show cause within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as to why the vacant land admeasuring 10 acres out of Ac.47.11 gts. allotted to the petitioner, shall not be resumed to the Government’s custody, alleging that it is kept idle and un-utilised for the past 25 years. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation, dated 17th March 2008. In the explanation filed by the petitioner, while denying the allegations of respondent No.5, it is stated that they have utilized the entire land and developed the land allotted to it by constructing a compound wall immediately after allotment, at the cost of Rs.10 lakhs in the year 1982 and further buildings were constructed costing Rs.1.65 Crores in the year 1984 and additional building complexes and facilities were made at the cost of Rs.10 Crores in 2003 and 2004. It is also stated that portions of land were used for greenery, protecting green environment in the institute for demonstration plants such as herbal and medicinal plants, bio-fuel plants, orchids and nurseries and it is specifically pleaded that development does not mean to construct only concrete structures on the entire land. Further, it is stated that the land was transferred by collecting market value, as such, there is no valid reason for resumption. Referring to the show cause notice and reply filed by the petitioner and the earlier orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.2008 of 2008, the impugned order, dated 31.07.2008, is passed in proceedings No.B/255/1991 for resumption of land to an extent of 10 acres out of Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli village, alienated to the petitioner-institute. 6. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the transfer made by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.498, Revenue (P) Department, dated 24.03.1981, land to an extent of Ac.47.11 gts. is transferred by collecting market value, and in that view of the matter, there is no power to the respondents to order for resumption of any portion of such land. It is contended that the land is transferred to the petitioner by way of alienation on payment of market value to the Government and as the same is not an assignment, respondents cannot order for resumption of a portion of the aforesaid land. 7. Counter affidavit is filed only by the 5th respondent, who passed the impugned order. In the counter, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 24.03.1981, have transferred an extent of Ac.47.11 gts. in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli village in favour of the petitioner-institute on condition that the allotted land shall be utilized for the purpose for which it is intended to. It is stated that the said orders were issued by the Government on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/-per acre, but as only an extent of Ac.47.11 gts. was available on the spot as per the survey report, same was handed over to the representative of the institute on 18th February 1981. It is stated that the said orders were issued by the Government on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/-per acre, but as only an extent of Ac.47.11 gts. was available on the spot as per the survey report, same was handed over to the representative of the institute on 18th February 1981. While referring to the earlier notice issued to the petitioner and also the orders passed by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is stated that after examining the reply filed by the petitioner-institute, as it was found that there is a clear contravention of the conditions of alienation stipulated at the time of transfer of land by the State of Andhra Pradesh, land to an extent of 10 acres out of the total area of Ac.47.11 gts. was ordered to be resumed. It is stated that pursuant to final orders passed, land was resumed by conducting a panchanama on 13th of August 2008 and the land to an extent of 10 acres is in possession of respondents. 8. Onbehalf of petitioner-institute, a reply affidavit is filed by the Principal/General Manager of the petitioner-institute. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the entire land allotted to the petitioner is covered by compound wall constructed by them and none of the officials of respondent No.5 have ever entered into the premises for inspecting the land. While disputing the averment in the counter that the respondents have taken possession of 10 acres of land, it is stated that the entire land is in possession of the petitioner-institute from 1981 onwards. It is stated that the petitioner-institute has completed the construction of various buildings like two hostels, kitchen and canteen block, 6 class rooms, 26 faculty rooms, library, auditorium, e-learning centre, exhibition hall, administrative block, principal and vice-principal office rooms, power house, security rooms etc., covering around 1,00,000 square feet, in addition to development of various demonstration plants like mango, guava, sapota and various aromatic and medicinal plants. It is stated that the said demonstration plants are required for exhibiting to the participating candidates under training system. It is stated that the said demonstration plants are required for exhibiting to the participating candidates under training system. It is stated that in view of the increase in the activities of the petitioner-institute, there is a need for construction of third hostel to take up the training programs for senior management cadre officials, for which, the consent of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is also obtained. In the reply, it is reiterated that as the land in question is purchased by the petitioner by paying market value, respondents cannot invoke power under Rule 6 of the A.P. (T.A) Alienation of State Lands and Revenue Rules 1975. 9. Heard learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy and also Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents. 10. It is contended by Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that the land was allotted to the petitioner-institute by transferring the same at market value, and in that view of the matter, there is no power to the respondents to resume such land. In any event, it is submitted that the land is allotted for the purpose of running a rural development institute for the bank and in view of using the land for the purpose of construction of buildings required for training programs, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not utilized the entire land for the purpose for which it is allotted. It is submitted that after constructing various buildings, the vacant land was also used for developing greenery and plants which are required for demonstration for the officers who undergo training, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that a portion of land is vacant to allege against the petitioner-institute that it is not used for the purpose for which it is allotted. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that when the transfer is made by collecting market value, and when no conditions are imposed by the respondents at the time of such transfer, it is not open for them to allege that the petitioner has violated any conditions. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that when the transfer is made by collecting market value, and when no conditions are imposed by the respondents at the time of such transfer, it is not open for them to allege that the petitioner has violated any conditions. It is further submitted that the petitioner-institute has used the entire land for the purpose for which it is allotted, and inspite of valid and tenable objections raised in the reply to the show cause notice, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order is passed. In that view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that in view of the growing needs of the institute, there are plans to develop it by constructing additional buildings, as such, it is not open for the respondents to order for resumption of any portion of land as ordered in the impugned proceedings. 11. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that on the application of the petitioner, huge valuable land admeasuring Ac.58.11 gts., was allotted to it, but when it was noticed after survey that only an extent of Ac.47.11 gts. was available, it was transferred in 1981, and though more than 25 years have elapsed, petitioner-institute has not used the entire land for the purpose for which it is allotted. In that view of the matter, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, impugned order is passed. It is further submitted that under Rule 6 of the A.P. (T.A) Alienation of State Lands and Revenue Rules 1975, it is not open for the petitioner-institute to plead that there are no conditions attached to the alienation. 12. From the material on record, in this case, it is to be noticed that the State Bank of India has decided to construct agricultural training complex, and it approached the Government through the Chief General Manager of its local head office as early as in 1980. They sought for transfer of land on payment of market value. On the claim of the petitioner, reports were called for from the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also Commissioner of Land Revenue. They sought for transfer of land on payment of market value. On the claim of the petitioner, reports were called for from the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also Commissioner of Land Revenue. In view of the recommendations made by the District Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue vide their reports dated 22.09.1980 and 27.08.1980 respectively, at first instance, the Government has issued Memo No.1291/P.1/80-2, dated 28.11.1980, requesting the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to hand over possession of the said Government land admeasuring Ac.57.11 gts. in Sy.No.26 of Gachibowli village of Rajendranagar Taluq to the petitioner on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre, pending approval of the proposal by the Government. Thereafter, approval was made by the Government and the Government has also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 24.03.1981, and the operative portion of the said G.O. reads as under : “Government have examined the proposal and they direct that the State Government land measuring Acs.57-11 guntas in S.No.26 of Gachibowli village of Rajendranagar Taluk be transferred in favour of the State Bank of India, Hyderabad, for setting up an Institute of Rural Banking, in relaxation of the ban orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1409, Revenue, dt.19.8.1978, and subject to payment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre and also payment of sub-division fees, demarcation charges etc.” From a perusal of the aforesaid orders of Government, it is clear that the land was already given possession on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre and orders were issued by the Government, approving the earlier proposals to that effect. In the orders issued by the Government, no conditions have been imposed. As it is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner-institute has violated the conditions of grant, but when it was noticed that no conditions were incorporated in any of the proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner, this matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the Government Pleader to produce the relevant file. Though several opportunities were given, lastly, it was represented on 21.11.2011 that the file is not traced and as such, they are not able to place it before the Court. I have perused the orders issued by the Government, allotting the land on the application made by the petitioner. Though several opportunities were given, lastly, it was represented on 21.11.2011 that the file is not traced and as such, they are not able to place it before the Court. I have perused the orders issued by the Government, allotting the land on the application made by the petitioner. In the orders, no conditions are imposed so as to resume the land on the allegation of contravention of conditions. In any event, it is to be noticed that it is not the case of respondents that the petitioner-institute is not using the land for the purpose of running a rural banking institute. As evident from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the reply affidavit, it is clear that immediately after allotment, a compound wall is constructed by spending about Rs.10 lakhs in 1981, and thereafter, several buildings that are required for the purpose of imparting training viz., the administrative block, faculty rooms, classrooms, library, auditorium, hostels, kitchen, canteen block, power house and security rooms were constructed approximately in an area of 1,00,000 square feet. It is also the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of training programs, the portions of vacant lands were used for developing greenery and plants like mango, guava, sapota and various aromatic and medicinal plants were also grown for exhibiting to the participants under the training system. It is also evident from the reply affidavit that the respondents have constructed Amphitheatre, sewage treatment plant, big car parking sheds and the proposal for constructing another hostel is also in the pipeline. It is not in dispute that the land is allotted for institutional purpose and the respondents have collected the market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/-per acre and handed over possession of the entire land. When the required buildings are constructed and are being used for the purposes for which the petitioner-institute is established, it is not open for the respondents to identify a portion of vacant land for resumption, alleging that same is not used for the purpose for which it is allotted. Development does not necessarily mean construction of concrete structures in the entire land allotted. When the purpose of institute itself is providing training for officers for rural banking, it is always open to the petitioner-institute to develop the land as per their requirement and planning. Development does not necessarily mean construction of concrete structures in the entire land allotted. When the purpose of institute itself is providing training for officers for rural banking, it is always open to the petitioner-institute to develop the land as per their requirement and planning. Merely because a portion of the land is not covered by constructions, it cannot be said that the petitioner-institute has not used such land for the purpose for which it is allotted. Clause 6 of the A.P. (T.A) Alienation of State Lands and Revenue Rules, 1975 framed under the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli empowers the respondents to impose any condition with regard to usage, at the time of allotment itself, but in the case on hand, without imposing any condition, land was transferred by collecting market value. When there is no condition at the time of grant, it is not open for the respondents to resume the land alleging that the petitioner has violated the conditions of grant. In any event, in this case, it is also to be noted that when the allotment itself is for the purpose of establishing a training institute for rural banking, it cannot be said that the petitioner-institute has not used the land for the purpose for which it is allotted. I have perused the explanation filed in response to the show cause notice, dated 10.03.2008. In the said explanation, while denying the allegation of respondents, though various contentious issues have been raised by the petitioner on the proposal of resumption of land, such explanation is not considered at all and a cryptic order has been passed without assigning any reasons for resumption of the land. Even the allegation of respondents that possession of land is taken over, cannot be accepted, for the reason that the entire land is encircled by a compound wall, and hence, it is not known as to how such portion of land covered by the impugned order is taken possession so as to plead that such land is in their possession. As this Court is of the view that the land is transferred to the petitioner-institute on payment of market value and in view of the explanation offered by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner-institute has violated any of the conditions so as to resume any portion of the land. As this Court is of the view that the land is transferred to the petitioner-institute on payment of market value and in view of the explanation offered by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner-institute has violated any of the conditions so as to resume any portion of the land. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the resumption order, which is passed without assigning any valid reasons, is ex facie illegal, and is passed in arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 31.07.2008, passed in Proceedings No.B/255/1991 for resumption of land admeasuring 10 acres in Sy.No.26 of Gachi Bowli village of Rajendranagar Taluq in Ranga Reddy District, from the petitioner-institute, is hereby quashed, and consequently, the taking over possession of the aforesaid land pursuant to the panchanama conducted on 13th of August 2008, also stands quashed. No order as to costs.