IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Distribution of State-owned assets – Government cannot distribute State’s largesse and normally State must get maximum value of resources, especially when State-owned assets are passed over to private individuals/entities.
(2) Decision to cut a colony in violation of specific conditions on which land had been allotted cannot be termed as anything else but fraud on statute.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J

1. Present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and final order dated 05th July, 2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.1328 of 2014, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Appellants herein and upheld the judgment and order dated 24th June, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) 28980/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is pertinent to mention that both the Courts below held that the Respondent-Trust is the absolute owner of the land to the extent of Ac.3.01 gts.in Sy. No.72/31 situated at Chinnathimmapur village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District, as the Appellant-State having sold the land on payment of market value could not have placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land and such restrictions were void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TPA’). The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“7. Thus, learned Single Judge noted that respondent had purchased the subject land on payment of market value from the Government. On such purchase, respondent became the owner of the subject land whereafter, the same ceased to be a Government land or an assignable land. Having sold the land on payment of market value, the Government could not have placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land by the land owner.

8. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out.”

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-State, submitted that the impugned judgments of the High Court were untenable in law, inasmuch as, they did not consider the statutory scheme under which the Appellant-State had allotted land to the Respondent-Trust. He pointed out that under Section 25 of Telangana Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), the Commissioner/Collector can assign/set apart any land for the purpose of public benefit. He stated that to facilitate alienation of land, the State of Telangana has framed Telangana Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 (for short ‘Rules 1975’) under Section 172 of the Act. The relevant portion of Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules 1975 are reproduced herein below: -

“5. (a) For every alienation of land requiring the sanction of the Board of Revenue or the State Government there shall be made an application by the Collector in the prescribed in Appendix I to these rules…….

6.(a) Every grant of Alienation of State land whether for religious Educational or any other public purpose always be subject to the following conditions:-

(1) The land shall be used and for no other purpose.

(2) The Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any buildings thereon, in the event of the infringement of any of the conditions of the grant. In the event of such resumption, no compensation shall be payable for any improvements that may have been effected, or other works that may have been executed on the land by the grantee and the grantee shall not be entitled to the repayment of any amount that may have been paid to the Government for the grant. If there are buildings on the land the Government may direct the grantee to remove them.”

3. He further stated that G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 02nd July, 1990 empowers the Commissioner, Land Revenue/ District Collectors to dispense Government lands by alienation on payment of market value. The relevant portion of the aforesaid G.O.Ms. is reproduced hereinbelow: -