IMPORTANT POINT
Non-utilization of land does not justify resumption if the grantee continues to pursue the purpose for which the land was granted.

JUDGMENT :

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:

1. The present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.5175 of 2020.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the petitioner started an Academy of Rehabilitation Sciences at Secunderabad in the year 1977 called Sweekaar. It is stated that this was a non-profit and non-commercial voluntary organisation which was aimed at rendering services to the mentally challenged, physically disabled, deaf, aged, drug addicts, widows and destitute and was thus a Multi-speciality Rehabilitation Centre. The petitioner claims that in the various programmes run by it, six thousand seven hundred and twenty Rehabilitation Professionals were trained and serving all over the country as also the abroad and catering to the requirements of approximately 70.45 lakhs of people suffering from the disabilities and the problems of addiction etc., most of which people belong to the poorer sections of the society.

3. It is stated that the institute run by the petitioner is the first of its kind in India and runs various training programmes viz. Diploma, Degree, PG and Ph.D. courses, all of which are recognised by the State and the Central Government as also the Universities and the Rehabilitation Council of India (for short “RCI”).

4. It is stated that Sweekar is a certified ISO 9001 institute and has received several national and international awards. Apart from this, it is claimed that the Founder Chairman of Sweekar has received 56 national and international awards out of which six are from the President of India. The Founder Chairman is stated to be a practicing Paediatrician, Rehabilitation Specialist and Ph.D. in Psychology.

5. It is also stated that considering the contributions made in the field, the then Chief Minister Dr.Y.S.R. Reddy, requested Sweekar to start a campus in Kadapa District to serve the mentally challenged and disabled in the Rayalaseema area. It is stated that pursuant to the aforementioned request, a parcel of land measuring ten acres was granted at a nominal cost of Rupees Fifty Thousand per acre, subject to the terms and conditions as laid down under Order 24 of Board of Revenue Standing Orders (for short “B.S.O.”) vide G.O.Ms.No.1405, Revenue (ASN.IV) Department, dated 03.11.2007. The land was allotted in the name of the petitioner society i.e., Founder and Chairman, Upkaar and Sweekaar, Secunderabad. Later, the nomenclature is stated to have been changed to “Sweekar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped” vide G.O.Ms.No.432, Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, dated 05.03.2009.

6. It is further stated that an area of approximately ten thousand square feet has been constructed over the land in question while the boundary has been well marked with cement poles and barbed wires. Two bore wells are stated to have been dug and provisions have been made for security, staff and others.

7. It is further stated that the petitioner institute was initially affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati and later to Yogi Vemana University at Kadapa. Permission is also stated to have been obtained from the RCI for recognition of the courses such as Bachelor and Diploma in Audiology, Speech and Language Pathology (BASLP), which is a four year course as also Diploma in Hearing Language and Speech, which is a two year course from 2005 onwards. It is stated that the academy has produced qualified professionals whose credentials have been approved not only by the University but also by the RCI.

8. The institute being run by the petitioner is stated to have been functioning for the past fourteen years and while being so, notice dated 27.11.2019, came to be received by the petitioner from the District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa stating that the land alienated to the institute had not fully been utilized except to a small extent and thus, conditions of alienation under B.S.O.24 had been violated. The petitioner was