Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 606 (TS)

BoIla Venkateswar Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-05-02

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not returning the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.640/AA situated at Tallagudem Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District, to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has donated the subject land in favour of the respondents for specific purpose of construction of Junior College at Thallagudem in the year, 2003 by way of Razinama in Form-C under A.P.(Telangana Area) and L.R.Rules, 1951. The respondent authorities have accepted the same and promised to construct the Junior College in the subject land for the students of Tallagudem Village as well as nearby villages. He submits that as the respondents have not complied with the specific condition and they have constructed the Junior College at some other place, the petitioner made application to the respondent No.2-District Collector on 20.02.2010, but no action has been taken. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the property was gifted by way of Razinama and its condition is not complied with, the landlord is having every right to withdraw the same and as per Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951, the registered holder is entitled to withdraw Razinama by submitting an application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after filing of the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.B/1415/02 dated 16.12.2010 stating that the Government Junior College was constructed in Kamepalli village instead of Tallagudem Village and the land donated by the petitioner is free from encroachment and lying vacant and as no relinquishment orders have been passed so far, he requested to accord permission to return back the land of the petitioner as he is a poor person and having no other land for his livelihood. He further submits that in spite of said letter, the respondent No.2 has not taken any action to re-convey the land to the petitioner. 6. He further submits that in spite of said letter, the respondent No.2 has not taken any action to re-convey the land to the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not a big landlord and despite passing of more than a decade and despite several requests, the respondents failed to return the subject land to the petitioner and in view of the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to return the said land to the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has relied on the following Judgment: 1. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi Vs. P.Bhagya Laxmi, 2017 SCC Online Mad 33945 2. Aginati Ravi Kumar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad , [2024 SCC Online TS 4042] 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has not specifically stated in whose favour the alleged donation of subject land by way of gift was made and the document executed by him. He submits that the petitioner has submitted Razinama Form-C for relinquishment under Rule 16 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 and the same was accepted and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamepally, has issued directions to the then Panchayat Secretary, Khammam vide Memo No.B/1415/2002 dated 01.07.2003 to make necessary entries in the village pahani under Rule 17 of Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Rules, 1951 and in view of the said proceedings, the land is vested with the Government from the date of accepting the Razinama and as per the revenue records, the land is being treated as Government land and lying vacant and there is no right to restore back the said land. He further submits that the Junior College was constructed in Kamepalli Village and the revenue authorities have allotted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.640 for village park under Palle Prakruthi Vanam Program and the revenue officials have handed over the same to the Gram Panchayat on 21.09.2020 and the Gram Panchayat has developed the subject land as park. He further submits that there are no records available pertaining to the subject land and the petitioner also has not filed the alleged gift and in view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is owner of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.640/AA situated at Tallagudem Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District and there is no dispute about the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the said land. For construction of Junior College at Tallagudem village as well as nearby villages, the petitioner has relinquished his right in the subject land in the year, 2003 and the same would reveal from the Memo Rc.No.B/1415/2002 dated 01.07.2003 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamepally and also the letter addressed by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.B/1415/02 dated 16.12.2010. 10. The petitioner has donated the subject land by way of Razinama in Form-C under Rule-16 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1951 for specific purpose of construction of Junior College. But the respondent- authorities have not constructed the Junior College in the donated land and constructed at another village i.e, Kamepalli and therefore the petitioner has made representation to the respondents on 20.02.2010 for restoration of patta in respect of their donated land in Sy.No.640/A. In response to the same, the respondent No.5 has addressed a letter Rc.No.B/1415/02 dated 16.12.2010 to the respondent No.2 and the relevant portion is as follows:- “I invite kind attention to the reference cited and submit that Sri Bollu Venkateswarlu R/o.Tallagudem H/o. Kamepalli (V) of Kamepalli Mandal has submitted an application to donate the land in Tallagudem H/o.Kamepalli Village Sy.No.640/AA Acrs.3-00 gts for the construction of Government Junior College. Accordingly the changes have been made in the village pahani occupant column has been filled as Government Junior College. Further it is submitted that Sri Ramreddy Venkat Reddy Hon’ble MLA the then Sujathanagar Constituency present Hon’ble Minister and the public of Kamepalli Mandal have represented to construct the said college in Kamepalli Mandal Head Quarters and Sri Dammalapati Rangaiah and Seshaiah have given consent to donate land in Sy.No.354 and 355 over an extent of Acrs:3-00 in Kamepalli Mandal Headquarters. Accordingly the pattedars have submitted land razinama papers and the District Collector, Khammam accorded permission to handover the land to the Principal Government Junior College, Kamepalli. The building is also constructed and running in the said building. Sri Bollu Venkateswarlu in his application 4th cited has requested for return back of the land since because the college was not constructed. In this connection I submit that the land is free from encroachment and lying vacant and as no relinquishment orders have been passed so far, I therefore request to accord permission return back the land to the applicant as he is a poor person and having no other land for his livelihood”. 11. In the counter, the respondents have stated that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.640 was allotted to village park under Palle Prakruthi Vanam Programme and as the revenue authorities have handed over the same to the Gram Panchayat on 21.09.2020, the Gram Panchayat has developed the subject land as park. Once the petitioner has donated the land for specific purpose and the respondent No.5 has addressed letter to the respondent No.2 for return/re-convey the land to the petitioner as the same was not utilized for specific purpose, without taking any appropriate action basing on the representation of the petitioner, now the land was allotted for other purpose. The contention of the respondents that the subject land was allotted for other purpose and the petitioner has no right to seek re- convey the land cannot be accepted and the same is arbitrary and illegal. If the petitioner’s land was acquired by the respondent authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the petitioner has no right to ask for re-convey the land. 12. The petitioner has donated his land for specific purpose i.e. for construction of Junior College, but the respondents have not utilized the said land and it is vacant. If the respondents want to utilize the donated land for other purpose, they have to inform the same to the petitioner and if the petitioner has not given consent, they have to reconvey the land to him. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of Madras High Court in Tahsildar’s case (supra) squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “8. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of Madras High Court in Tahsildar’s case (supra) squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “8. The gift of the land was given for a specific purpose. The construction of school building in the name of the donor was the sole object of the gift. There is a marked difference between acquisition of land and the demand for reconveyance on account of the failure to utilize the land for the purpose which it was acquired and a gift of land for a particular public purpose and claim made by the donor for return of the land on the ground that the land was not used for the particular purpose for which it was gifted. In case, it is a compulsory acquisition for public purpose, the scope of reconveyance under Section 48-B is very limited. The Government must be satisfied that the land was not used for the specific purpose and it is not necessary for any other public purpose. Then only, the question of re-conveyance would arise. However, in a case of this nature, when the purpose of gift failed to materialize, the donor would be justified in claiming the land back. There is no right for re-conveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is only a right to consider the request for re- conveyance. However, that is not the case in case it is a conditional gift for construction of school building, hospital, etc., and on account of subsequent events or efflux of time, the object is no more in existence. In case a request is made by the donor on account of the non-accomplishment of the purpose for which gift of land was given, the Government must consider such request giving due weight to the wishes of the donor while executing the gift deed donating the land for the purpose indicated therein. 14. Following the above Judgment, this Court has recently allowed the writ petition in Aginati Ravi Kumar’s case (supra). 15. In the instant case, the respondents have not utilized the gifted land for the purpose for which it was gifted. 14. Following the above Judgment, this Court has recently allowed the writ petition in Aginati Ravi Kumar’s case (supra). 15. In the instant case, the respondents have not utilized the gifted land for the purpose for which it was gifted. As per the letter dated 16.12.2010, the respondent No.5 seeks permission of the respondent No.2 to return back the subject land to the petitioner as he is a poor person and having no other land for his livelihood and as the subject land was not utilized for the purpose of construction of Junior College. 16. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is requested to re-convey the subject land as it was not utilized for construction of Junior College in the year, 2010 and the respondents have not taken any appropriate action to re-convey the land to the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. In view of the same, the respondents have to re-convey the subject land to the petitioner. 17. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to re-convey the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.640/AA situated at Tallagudem Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District to the petitioner, within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. 18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.