Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1351 (TS)

Polagani Saidamma v. State of Telangana

2025-10-30

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned refusal notice issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Sub-Registrar Kodad File No.278/2015 dt.02.03.2016 refusing to register the document of the petitioners dt.30.11.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to receive and register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing the present Writ Petition are that the petitioners have donated an extent of 800 square yards equivalent to 668.90 square metres of land situated in Survey No.365/E vide Khasra 824 (Minjumile) of Kudakuda Village and Gram Panchayat, Chivvemla Mandal, Nalgonda District within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar, Suryapet vide registered gift deed bearing Document No.1770/1992 dt.03.04.1992 in favour of the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad without any consideration for construction of Suryapet Sub-Registrar’s office. However, the respondents have not constructed the Sub-Registrar’s office in the donated land in spite of lapse of 24 years and it remained an open land and was subjected to various encroachments. In view thereof, on 30.11.2015, the petitioners made an application before the 3 rd respondent for cancellation of the gift deed dt.03.04.1992, but the 3 rd respondent issued the impugned refusal notice dt.02.03.2016 returning the gift cancellation deed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even as on date, the respondents have not constructed the Sub- Registrar’s Office in the subject land and it is lying vacant and since the gift was a conditional gift and since the condition has not been fulfilled, the respondents should be directed to return the land to the petitioners. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the condition mentioned in the gift deed and placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of B.Prabhavathamma and others Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department and others , [W.P.No.3220 of 2014 dt.05.06.2023] and also the decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M.Thiyagarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department and others , [W.P.No.3220 of 2014 dt.05.06.2023] and also the decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M.Thiyagarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and others , [2017 SCC OnLine Mad 3742] and also the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Paschim Singicherra Gram Panchayat and another Vs. Sailendra Kumar Bhattacharjee and another, (2012) 4 Gauhati Law Reports 715 and the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sanjay Bajpal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and others , [2015 SCC OnLine Chh 186] and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi, Coimbatore District and another Vs. P. Bagyalakshmi , [2017 SCC OnLine Mad 33945] . He submitted that in all these cases, the Courts have held that where the gift is conditional gift without any consideration and if the conditions are not fulfilled, then the donated land has to be returned to the original owner. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act , 1908 and particularly Rule 26(i)(k)(i), which has been amended subsequently, provided that cancellation of registered deed can only be at the request of both the executants as well as the claimant and in this case, the petitioners cannot claim cancellation of the gift deed unilaterally. She also placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent to this effect and placed reliance upon the Memo issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide Memo No.G1/10547/2008 dt.25.08.2008 in respect of the same. It is further submitted that once the land has been gifted in the name of the Government, the Government has become the owner of the property and the donors have no right, whatsoever, against the same and even if it is to be returned, the Collector is the appropriate authority to do so and not respondents 1 to 3 who are made as parties to this Writ Petition. It is thus submitted that for non-joinder of necessary parties, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. It is thus submitted that for non-joinder of necessary parties, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court observes that, vide orders dt.05.02.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2018, the Collector was impleaded as the 4 th respondent, but has not chosen to file any counter affidavit till date. Since the Collector is now a party to this Writ Petition, the objection of non-joinder of necessary party needs no consideration. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, the subject property has been gifted vide registered gift deed bearing Document No.1770/1992 dt.03.04.1992 in favour of Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps by the petitioners without any consideration and for the purpose of construction of Sub-Registrar’s office. By such gift deed, the Government of Andhra Pradesh became the owner of the property. However, it is also an admitted fact that the gift was conditional, that the respondents would construct Sub- Registrar’s Office at Suryapet in the said land. Admittedly, the condition has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the gift would become voidabale at the instance of the donors. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners support this view. 7. In the case of The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi, Coimbatore District and another Vs. P. Bagyalakshmi (supra), the Madras High Court has observed as under. “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. 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.” 8. In the case of M.Thiyagarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and others (supra), the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has observed as under. “ 25. The petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos.9604 and 18179 of 2016 seek a Writ of Mandamus, to construct the Medical College and Hospital at Kuppuchipalayam Village solely on account of the gift of land by them to the Government. There is no legal right to compel the Government to establish the Medical College and Hospital at Kuppuchipalayam Village. There was no promise given by the Government to the petitioners before the gift that the Medical College would be established there. The gift of land was a voluntary act on the part of the donors. There is no legal right to compel the Government to establish the Medical College and Hospital at Kuppuchipalayam Village. There was no promise given by the Government to the petitioners before the gift that the Medical College would be established there. The gift of land was a voluntary act on the part of the donors. The petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos.9604 and 18179 of 2016, except their self-serving affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions, have not produced even a scrap of paper to show that the Director of Medical Education or the Collector approached them for land and pursuant to such request, coupled with a promise, they have parted with the land. Therefore, there is no legal duty on the part of the Government to comply with the demand made by the donors of land. The Government has now made it clear that the land would be given back to the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos.9604 and 18179 of 2016. The petitioners have, therefore, no legal right to compel the State to establish the Medical College at Kuppuchipalayam Village.” 9. In the case of Paschim Singicherra Gram Panchayat and another Vs. Sailendra Kumar Bhattacharjee and another (supra), the Gauhati High Court has observed as under. “ 15. In the case at hand, admittedly, the plaintiff executed the gift deed donating the land for the purpose of construction of a stadium. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the defendants constructed a Panchayat office, an Anganwadi Centre, a Garden on the suit land and also excavated a Tank. The trial court held that the gift deed, since did not specify any time limit for construction of the stadium decided issue No.2 against the plaintiff but the first appellate court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, has held that the defendants deviated from the condition of the gift and since did not take any step towards construction of the stadium within 15 years, i.e., from the date of execution of the deed till the passing of the judgment by the appellate court, held that the time limit though not specified exposed the intention of the defendants and, therefore, decreed the suit. There is nothing in law that unless the time limit is specified in the recitals of the deed, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, the court should consider a conditional gift for an uncertain future time. Under such circumstances, the argument of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas that first substantial question of law, as formulated cannot be termed as substantial question of law, cannot be accepted. It was definitely a substantial question of law but in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the appellate court does not deserve interference. Gift was executed on 30.7.1986. The Title suit was decreed on 11.06.1998. The first appeal was filed on 7.9.1998 and the judgment and decree was passed on 17.8.2011 and 18.8.2001 respectively. During this period of 15 years the defendants did not take effective step for construction of stadium. No scrap of paper produced before the trial court and the appellate court that any plan of action, allotment of fund was made for the purpose of construction of a stadium. Under such circumstances, the decision taken by the appellate court does not warrant interference.” 10. In the case of B.Prabhavathamma and others Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department and others (supra), this Court has observed as follows. “7. iv. This Court opines that it is the bounden duty of the Respondent Authority to consider the request made by the Petitioner for return of the subject land on account of the non-accomplishment of the purpose for which the land was gifted giving due weight to the wishes of the Petitioner while executing the gift deed donating the subject land for the purpose indicated therein. This Court opines that in a case of this nature, when the purpose of the gift failed to materialize, the donor would be justified in claiming the land back. The generous gesture of the Petitioner in donating the land for a purpose should infact be appreciated and the land donated should be returned to the Petitioner by the Respondent Authority since the Petitioner’s gift is a conditional gift for the purpose of construction of PHC and on account of subsequent events or efflux of time the object is no more in existence.” 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances and also the judicial precedents on the issue, this Court is satisfied that since the conditions in the gift deed have not been fulfilled, the petitioners are entitled to the return of the subject land. However, since it is claimed that it is the Collector who has to pass orders for return of the land to the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to make an appropriate application to the 4 th respondent Collector within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such receipt of the application, the 4 th respondent collector shall pass orders thereon by taking into consideration, the precedents referred to above and direct the 3 rd respondent to register the document for cancellation of the gift deed bearing Document No.1770/1992 dt.03.04.1992 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.