S. Noor Mohammad v. Government Of Karnataka R/by Its Principal Secretary Department Of Revenue, Bengaluru
2020-07-15
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
body2020
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 29.02.2020 bearing No.REV/ THS/03/2013-14, issued by the respondent No.2, vide Annexure-N and also writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to reconvey the land bearing T.S.No.12/7, Ward No.21, Block No.01, situated at Infantry Road, Ballari City, Ballari District, measuring 1 acres 70 cents. 2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under: The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the petition land. The petitioners have gifted this property in favour of Government which was accepted by the then Tahasildar by way of gi ft. This petition property was gi fted for the purpose of establishment of Dayakendra for the persons suffering from the leprosy, with a condition that the land should be used for the purpose of Dayakendra. The petitioners have speci fically contended in the writ petition that it was a conditional gift. While gifting the said property, the petitioners had imposed certain conditions and one of the said conditions was that in the event of the authorities shi fting the Dayakendra, it was agreed that the land gifted should be reconveyed in favour of the land owners i.e., the present petitioners. 3. The contentions of the petitioners before this Court is that one R.Jaswa, who is the President of Vemuri Ramayya Kushtarogigala Seva Sangh (Dayakendra) Ballari submitted an application to cancel the allotment in favour of Dayakendra and in the said application he has stated that the Sangh is unable to utilize the said property for the purpose for which it was allotted. He has also referred in the said application that some third parties are trying to encroach over the petition property. 4. The Deputy Commissioner on receipt of application, directed the Assistant commissioner to visit the spot and submit a report. The Assistant Commissioner having visited the spot has made a recommendation to secure possession of the land in order to safeguard the land from the encroachment of private third parties. 5. The petitioners, in this background appears to have submitted a representation on 25.06.2014 requesting the authorities to reconvey the petition land bearing T.S.No.12/7, Ward No.21, Block No.01, situated at Infantry Road, Ballari City totally measuring 1 acres 70 cents. 6. Since there was inaction, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.114311/2019.
5. The petitioners, in this background appears to have submitted a representation on 25.06.2014 requesting the authorities to reconvey the petition land bearing T.S.No.12/7, Ward No.21, Block No.01, situated at Infantry Road, Ballari City totally measuring 1 acres 70 cents. 6. Since there was inaction, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.114311/2019. This Court has disposed of the writ petition by order dated 04.10.2019. The copy of the said order is placed on record as per Annexure-F. This Court taking note of submission made by learned Government Advocate disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. The 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-N by rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner whi le rejecting the representation has held that the Government intends to utilize the said land for the purpose for which the land has been donated i.e., for the wel fare centre of the Leprosy patients through the Social Welfare Department. The 2nd respondent / Deputy Commissioner also states in the impugned order that on account of stay granted by this Court in W.P.No.105453/2019, further action in the matter would be taken after disposal of the pending writ petition. 8. Leaned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner has erred in holding that there is an interim order by this Court. He would submit to this Court that this finding is factually incorrect. As on the date of disposal of this impugned order, he would submit that the writ petition referred in the impugned order in W.P.No.105453/2019, though filed, was pending for scrutiny and there was no interim order. 9. To buttress his arguments, he has furnished an internet generated copy indicating status of the case as per Annexure-L and the same indicates that the matter was listed on 23.10.2019 and same was adjourned granting two weeks time to comply the office objections. If the case status furnished at Annexure-L is taken note of, this Court is of the view that the said observation by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and in absence of any material on record.
If the case status furnished at Annexure-L is taken note of, this Court is of the view that the said observation by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and in absence of any material on record. The 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner has also proceeded to reject the application submitted by the petitioners on the premises that the Government intends to utilize the land for the same purpose for which the land has been donated. 10. This finding needs to be set aside in the light of judgment relied by the petitioners rendered in the case of Harish Chandra Vs. hindu Dharma Sewak Mandal and another, (1936) AIR Allahabad 197 and judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bansi Dhar and others, (1974) AIR SC 1084 . 11. On relying on these two judgments, the leaned counsel for petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the gi ft in favour of respondent State is not absolute, it is a conditional gift. Clause (1) of the condition in the gi ft deed clearly contemplates Donor's right to seek possession, i f the petition land is not utilized for the purpose, for which it was donated. 12. Learned Government Advocate however would oppose this writ petition and contend before this Court that the order itsel findicates that the authorities are intending to use the petition land for the treatment of leprosy patients. In this background, the authorities are likely to resolve to handover this to Social Wel fare Department. This observation would clearly demonstrate that that there is no violation of conditions attached to the gi ft. Relying on this observation made by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, he would submit to this Court that question of reconveying of the property would not arise in the present case. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with similar identical cases has held that where a donor has specified a special object or more for the course of his benefaction, the Court cannot innovate and undo, but where the transaction clearly indicates that it is not a gift simplicitor, but was subject to matching grant from the Government, in such cases the Government was mere custodian of the property. The Hon'ble Apex Court was also of the view that, i f there is a failure of condition, then consequences have to follow. 14.
The Hon'ble Apex Court was also of the view that, i f there is a failure of condition, then consequences have to follow. 14. In the light of above discussions, the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner has mechanically rejected the application by superficially observing that the Government stillintends to utilize the land for the same purpose for which the land has been donated. 15. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge as per Annexure-N is not at all sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. 16. For the reasons stated supra, writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 29.02.2020 bearing No.REV/THS/03/2013- 14 issued by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner is quashed. The 2nd respondent/ Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners afresh. While doing so, the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner shall examine the conditions attached to the gift and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.