JUDGMENT : Since the issues that arise in the above writ petition and writ appeal are integrally one and the same, the writ petition and writ appeal are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 and W.A.No.109 of 2025, though instituted through separate proceedings, pertain to the same subject property admeasuring Ac.6.00 gts in Sy.Nos. 859, 860 and 861 of Mothkur Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri (erstwhile Nalgonda) District. The principal question that arises for determination is whether land relinquished in favour of the Government under Form-C of the Telangana Land Revenue Rules, 1951 (for short ‘Rules 1951’) for a specified public purpose may thereafter be reconveyed to the original owners, and whether any such exercise is legally sustainable. 3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 is referred hereinafter as ‘petitioner’. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 and appellants in W.A.No.109 of 2025 being official respondents, are referred as ‘State’. 5. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025; respondents in W.A.No.109 of 2025 and writ petitioners in W.P.No.27037 of 2014 being one and the same, are referred as ‘respondent Nos.7 and 8’ for the sake of adjudication of the case. 6. Heard Sri Dr. Kadiri Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners in W .P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025; Sri E.Venkata Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1 in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue Department appearing for appellants in W.A.No.109 of 2025 and respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025; Smt.Gudipati Sharvani, learned counsel representing Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.(PIL).No.12 of 2025 and Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri R.S.Sumith Raj, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W.P.(PIL).No.12 of 2025 and respondents Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.109 of 2025 and perused the record. Chronology of litigations 7. W.A.No.109 of 2025 has been preferred by the State assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2024 in W.P.No.27037 of 2014, whereby the learned Judge directed reconveyance of Acs.4.00 gts of the subject land to the original donors (respondents herein) on the premise that the specific public purpose for which the land was relinquished, i.e., for construction of a Mini Sports Stadium had not been fulfilled. 8. 8. W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 has been instituted by one Dr. Gurram Lakshminarsimha Reddy, a public-spirited citizen, seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the State from reconveying the aforesaid Acs.4.00 Gts to the original donors, contending that the land, being Government property held in public trust and presently in use as a school playground and cannot be divested. Compendium of facts 9. The centralized facts imperative for adjudication of the present case, are as follows: i. That respondents in W.A.No.109 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the donors”) were the original pattadars of land in Sy.Nos.858 to 861 of Mothkur Village. ii. In the year 2005, at the instance of the local MLA and village elders, the donors voluntarily executed Form-C relinquishment deeds under Rule 16 of the Rules 1951, relinquishing an extent of Ac. 6.00 gts in Sy.Nos.859, 860 and 861 for the purpose of construction of a Mini Sports Stadium. iii. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mothkur, accepted the relinquishment, mutated the land in favour of the Government, and took possession vide proceedings dated 22.03.2005. iv. Out of the donated extent, Ac.2.00 Gts were utilized for construction of a Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (for short ‘KGBV’), which has been functioning since 2013. v. The remaining Ac. 4.00 Gts. intended for the Mini Sports Stadium, remained unutilized on account of alleged paucity of funds. vi. In the year 2014, the donors sought restoration of the unutilized land; however, the Tahsildar rejected the request through Memo No. B/1127/2014 dated 30.07.2014, stating that the land continued to be required for governmental purposes. vii. Aggrieved, the donors filed W.P.No.27037 of 2014, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 21.11.2024, directing reconveyance of Ac. 4.00 Gts to them. viii. During this period, the petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No. 12 of 2025, a senior citizen and resident of Mothkur, filed the present Public Interest Litigation asserting that the said land is being used as a playground by school children of KGBV and that its reconveyance would be contrary to public interest. Submissions of the appellants in W.A.No.109 of 2025 10. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory nature and consequences of the relinquishment executed by the respondents. Submissions of the appellants in W.A.No.109 of 2025 10. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory nature and consequences of the relinquishment executed by the respondents. It is contended that the donors voluntarily executed Form-C under Rule 16 of the Rules 1951, relinquishing an extent of Ac.6.00 gts in Sy.Nos.859, 860 and 861 for a construction of a Mini Sports Stadiu, which relinquishment deeds executed on stamp papers and duly signed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, constituted absolute and unconditional relinquishment of rights in the lands. 11. It is argued that upon receipt of the Form-C applications, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the statutory notification calling for objections, and no claims were received. Consequently, the MRO passed orders dated 22.03.2005 in Progs.No.C/138/2005, certifying the relinquishment, deleting the donors’ names from the revenue records, and mutating the land in favour of the Government, and the possession was also formally taken on 01.04.2005. It is thus submitted that the relinquishment attained finality, and the donors stood divested of all right, title and interest in the said lands. 12. The Government Pleader placed reliance on Rule 23 of the Rules 1951, which permits withdrawal of a ‘Razinama’ only before the order excluding the pattadar’s name from the land records is passed. In the present case, the donors’ names stood deleted long back in 2005; therefore, the respondents had no statutory right to seek withdrawal or restoration of the relinquished land. 13. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the relinquishment as akin to a conditional gift. A statutory relinquishment under Rule 16 is not governed by the principles of conditional donation under the Transfer of Property Act, but is a unilateral abandonment of rights, authorised under the Land Revenue Act and Rules. It is submitted that once relinquishment deed is certified and sanctioned as per Land Revenue Act, the property vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances or equities and cannot be revoked. 14. The appellants contend that the subsequent utilization of Ac.2.00 Gts for construction of a KGBV School being a public institution catering to nearly 270 students was fully within the ambit of “public purpose” and cannot be construed as a deviation defeating the object of the donation. 14. The appellants contend that the subsequent utilization of Ac.2.00 Gts for construction of a KGBV School being a public institution catering to nearly 270 students was fully within the ambit of “public purpose” and cannot be construed as a deviation defeating the object of the donation. The balance Ac.4.00 Gts out of total extent of Ac.6-00 Gts being vacant, continues to remain earmarked for the stadium, and the delay in construction is solely due to paucity of funds. The administrative sanction for the stadium continues to subsist, and steps have been taken to seek release of funds from the Sports Authority. 15. The appellants submit that the Tahsildar’s memo dated 30.07.2014, rejecting the request for reconveyance and stating that the land was required for “government purpose”, merely used an imprecise expression in place of “public purpose” and cannot alter the legal position that the land continues to be needed for the approved public purpose of establishing a stadium. 16. On the above grounds, the Government Pleader contends that the direction of the learned Single Judge to reconvey Ac.4.00 Gts to the donors runs contrary to the statutory scheme of the Land Revenue Act and Rules; is inconsistent with the vesting of the land in the State, and undermines a public project, still actively pursued by the administration. Submissions of the respondents in W.A.No.109 of 2025 17. Learned counsel for the respondents–donors affirmed the impugned order and submitted that the relinquishment executed in the year 2005 was not an unconditional or absolute surrender, but one made for a clearly specified public purpose, for construction of a Mini Sports Stadium in Mothkur Village. It is contended that the purpose was explicitly recorded in the Form-C, and the entire act of donation was motivated and guided by assurances from public representatives and revenue authorities that a stadium would be established for the benefit of the local youth. 18. Learned counsel submitted that although nearly twenty years have elapsed since the execution of the relinquishment, the stadium has not been constructed, and the remaining Ac.4.00 Gts have been left vacant without any public use. It is submitted that as subject land is donated or relinquished for a specific purpose, and the Government failed to utilize it for that purpose, the respondents-donors retain an equitable right to seek restoration of the unutilized portion. 19 . It is submitted that as subject land is donated or relinquished for a specific purpose, and the Government failed to utilize it for that purpose, the respondents-donors retain an equitable right to seek restoration of the unutilized portion. 19 . The respondents placed reliance on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk v. P. Bhagya Lakshmi, (2017) SCC OnLine Mad 33945 , wherein it was held that when land donated for a specified public purpose is not utilized, the Government cannot retain it indefinitely, and the unutilized portion must be restored to the donor. Learned counsel submitted that the principle laid down therein squarely applies to the present case, as the cause and purpose of the donation have entirely failed. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge correctly appreciated that the State had abandoned the original purpose, and that continued retention of the land was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. The order directing reconveyance of the unutilized Ac.4.00 Gts is therefore legal, equitable, and justified. Submissions of the petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the proposed reconveyance of Ac.4-00 Gts in Sy.Nos.859 and 860 to respondent Nos.7 and 8, contending that the land stood validly relinquished through Form-C (Rule 16) Relinquishment dated 17.02.2005, and pursuant thereto, patta was transferred to the Government vide proceedings No.C/138/2005 dated 22.03.2005. It is submitted that once such relinquishment had taken effect, the land vested absolutely in the State and formed part of public trust for the community. 21. It was submitted that the land is being effectively utilized for a public purpose, such as establishment of Kasturba Gandhi Girls High School (constructed in 2011 and functional since 2013), and the remaining Ac.4-00 Gts. is in continuous use as the school playground for more than a decade till date. Thus, the subject land constitutes an essential public utility, and its alienation back to private parties would defeat the very purpose underlying the voluntary donation. 22. The learned counsel by invoking the Doctrine of Public Trust, submitted that once land is vested in the State for public benefit, the Government functions as a trustee and is restrained from divesting or transferring such property to private individuals. 22. The learned counsel by invoking the Doctrine of Public Trust, submitted that once land is vested in the State for public benefit, the Government functions as a trustee and is restrained from divesting or transferring such property to private individuals. Any attempt to reconvey the land would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by impairing the public's right to access and enjoy a vital community resource. In this regard reliance was placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 , mandating stringent judicial scrutiny whenever public property is sought to be diverted for private gain. 23. Learned counsel also emphasized that the Tahsildar had already rejected the donors’ request for restoration through Memo No.B/1127/2014 dated 30.07.2014, categorically recording that the land continues to be required for Government purposes, and therefore, restoration of patta was impermissible. The said order, not having been challenged, has attained finality and binds the official respondents. 24. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Consideration by this Court 25. In this regard, this Court considers it appropriate to delineate and frame points for consideration arising in the  matter, so as to facilitate a proper and orderly adjudication of the case. I. Locus Standi and Maintainability of PIL 26. The petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 is a resident of the locality with no personal or private interest. The petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements under the Telangana PIL Rules, 2015. The issues being raised in the instant matter pertains to protection of government land, enforcement of public trust obligations, and safeguarding recreational space for school children squarely falling within recognized domains of public interest litigation. In view of the above, the present PIL is maintainable, and the petitioner possesses the requisite locus standi. II. Dispute as to Nature and Legal Effect of Form-C Relinquishment 27. It is pertinent to note that the foremost issue concerns the nature and legal effect of the relinquishment executed by the donors under Rules 1951. As per Rule 16, a Form-C relinquishment is a statutory mode by which a pattadar surrenders his rights in patta land in favour of the Government. It is pertinent to note that the foremost issue concerns the nature and legal effect of the relinquishment executed by the donors under Rules 1951. As per Rule 16, a Form-C relinquishment is a statutory mode by which a pattadar surrenders his rights in patta land in favour of the Government. Once such relinquishment is duly executed, accepted by the competent authority, and mutation is effected under Rule 23, the transfer of title to the State becomes complete, and the vesting becomes absolute, unconditional and free from encumbrances, unless the Form-C itself incorporates specific conditions governing its operation. Rule 16 of the Rules 1951 is extracted hereunder: Rule 16. Relinquishment of land:— A registered holder may relinquish his land by submitting an unconditional razinama in writing to the Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar before the end of April in any year. Such razinama need not be stamped but shall be in Form 'C' and the declaration therein shall be attested by two respectable witnesses. The Patwari shall, if requested to do so by the registered holder, write the razinama himself without charging any fees for the same. If the razinama is prepared by the Patwari, he shall affix his signature beneath the words written on the lower left hand corner of such razinama. The Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar, as the case may be, who receives such razinama shall certify it in his own hand according to the certificate prescribed in Form 'C'. He shall exercise due care in ascertaining the identity of the person who has signed the same, notwithstanding that such notice has been duly. endorsed as hereinbefore required. The relinquishment shall have effect from the close of the current year. 28. In the present case, the relinquishment deeds (Exhibits P-2 and P-3) do not contain any clause stipulating reversion of the land to the donors upon non-construction of the Mini Sports Stadium. The recital of the intended purpose is, at best, a declaration of the motivating objective for the relinquishment. It is settled law that purpose or motive, unless embodied as a legal condition, does not restrict the absolute nature of such statutory transfers. 29. It is to be noted that as per Rule 23 of the Rules 1951, it permits withdrawal of relinquishment only prior to the passing of the mutation order. It is settled law that purpose or motive, unless embodied as a legal condition, does not restrict the absolute nature of such statutory transfers. 29. It is to be noted that as per Rule 23 of the Rules 1951, it permits withdrawal of relinquishment only prior to the passing of the mutation order. However, in the present case, the Tahsildar having accepted the relinquishment and mutated the land in favour of the Government as early as 22.03.2005, the donors’ statutory right to withdraw stood extinguished. Rule 23 of the Rules 1951 is extracted hereunder: Rule 23. Procedure when razinama is withdrawn:— A registered holder whose razinama has been certified may withdraw the same at any time before the order for excluding his name from the land records has been passed in Jamabandi, by submitting an application in writing to the Tahsildar withdrawing his razinama. On receipt of such application, the Tahsildar shall not take any further action on the razinama and shall pass orders that the patta of the land shall continue in the name of the applicant. Thus, the donors application for restoration in 2014 was, therefore, legally untenable and impermissible. III. Dispute as to the applicability of the Public Trust doctrine and its Constitutional imperatives 30. The principle that the State holds public property in trust for the people, and such lands cannot be alienated to private individuals contrary to public interest was interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (Supra 2) and in other subsequent cases. It mandates that government land, particularly where it is being utilised for public welfare, must be preserved for collective benefit. The relevant para is extracted hereinunder for ready reference: 34. Our legal system — based on English common law — includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea- shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. 31. In the present case, part of the relinquished land has been utilised for establishing a KGBV, and the remaining land has been continuously used as a playground by school children for several years. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. 31. In the present case, part of the relinquished land has been utilised for establishing a KGBV, and the remaining land has been continuously used as a playground by school children for several years. Such sustained public use gives rise to legitimate expectations and confers substantive rights under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution, relating to the right to education and the right to development of children. 32. In this regard the Tahsildar’s rejection order dated 30.07.2014 rightly notes that the subject land continues to be required for governmental purposes (public purpose). The State’s obligation is not merely to preserve title but to utilise public land in a manner that advances public welfare. Thus, the reconveyance of land to private individuals, after crystallisation of public rights would offend the public trust doctrine. IV. Dispute as to whether the relinquishment constitutes a conditional gift 33. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge’s reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk (Supra 1), which dealt with a conditional gift deed containing an express stipulation for reversion, is inapplicable to a statutory relinquishment under Form-C, where the vesting flows directly from the statute and operates independent of any subjective purpose stated by the donor. 34. Even assuming that some semblance of a purpose condition existed, the land has been partly utilised for another public purpose, i.e., for the construction and functioning of a school, and the remaining extent has been earmarked for the stadium. Non-utilisation of the remaining extent due to paucity of funds cannot by itself trigger any reversion of the property to the donors who stood divested of the property. Conclusion 35. In light of the foregoing discussion and the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is constrained to conclude that the said land having been relinquished under Form-C and mutated in favour of the Government, vests absolutely in the State. The donors have no residual right, title or interest. The land being held by the State in public trust, and its present utilization for a school and as a playground subserves unquestionable public interest and any reconveyance of the said land to private individuals would be impermissible, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India. 36. The land being held by the State in public trust, and its present utilization for a school and as a playground subserves unquestionable public interest and any reconveyance of the said land to private individuals would be impermissible, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India. 36. In this regard, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2024 is set aside and W.P. No. 27037 of 2014 is dismissed. 37. Accordingly, W.A.No.109 of 2025 and W.P (PIL) No.12 of 2025 are allowed with the following directions: i. The official respondents-State are directed not to reconvey, restore or in any manner transfer of the land admeasuring Ac. 4.00 Gts in Sy Nos. 859 and 860 of Mothkur Village to respondents No. 7 and 8 (the donors) or any other private party. ii. The official respondents are directed to maintain and protect the said land for the use of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) School and as a playground for the students as is now being used or for the construction of a stadium upon receipt of funds from the concerned. iii. To take appropriate steps, including fencing and surveillance, if necessary, to prevent any encroachment or unauthorized claim over the land. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.