K.K. Sasidharan, J.

Introductory:-

1. The father of the appellant donated 30.35 acres of land in Madampakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpat District to the Corporation of Chennai, by gift deed dated 15 March 1946, for the specific purpose of establishing a full fledged leprosy hospital. The Corporation after a period of seventy years, constructed a leprosy clinic using less than 12 cents of land, after failing in its attempt to give the land to the employees of Chennai Corporation for construction of residential houses. The appellant, aged about 89 years, is before this Court to direct the respondents to return the land to her on the ground that it was not utilized for the purpose for which her father gifted the land to the local body.

The facts:-

2. (a) The appellant is the daughter of Dr. R.M. Aalagappa Chettiar a philanthropist and educationalist, who floated Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust for establishing educational institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu to serve the public in general and poor people in particular.

(b) It is the case of the appellant that Dr. Alagappa Chettiar, with a view to establish a Leprosy Hospital, gifted 30.35 acres of land to the Chennai Corporation. The Corporation without utilizing the land for the avowed purpose, made an attempt to distribute the land to its employees for construction of houses. The plan was dropped on account of the objection raised by the appellant. Since the land was not at all used for the specific purpose, the appellant made a request to return the land to her. The appellant failed to obtain relief from the writ court and therefore filed this intra court appeal.

(c) The Chennai Corporation in its counter affidavit in W.P.No.21737 of 2017 contended that a Leprosy Hospital was constructed in 2015 and it was inaugurated on 29 January 2016. The Corporation has put up a compound wall covering two acres of land, housing the Leprosy Hospital.

Submissions by parties :-

3. (a) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land was gifted for a specific purpose. Even after a period of 70 years, the land was not used for the purpose for which it was gifted. Since leprosy was eradicated, there is no need for a full fledged leprosy hospital now in the State. According to the learned counsel, the Corporation would have given the land to its employees for housing purpose, but for the intervention of the appellant. The learned counsel placed reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court in W.A.No.836 of 2017 in support of his contentions.

(b) The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that it is for the Government to take a decision in the matter.

(c) The learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation submitted that the Corporation has constructed a building in two grounds for the Leprosy Hospital and put up a compound wall covering two acres of land. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that there is no proposal now to give the land to the employees.

Discussion :-

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant gifted 30.35 acres of land to the Chennai Corporation by executing a registered gift deed dated 13 March 1946. The land was given for the specific purpose of constructing a leprosy sanatorium. It is the admitted case that the land was not used for the specific purpose for which it was given, till 2016. According to the Corporation, hospital building was constructed by using 4800 sq.ft. of land, equivalent to 12 cents. The Corporation contended that they have put up a compound wall surrounding two acres of land housing the hospital, which was inaugurated on 29 January 2016. Therefore, it is clear that the Corporation is still keeping 28.35 acres of land without utilizing it for the specific purpose for which it was gifted by the father of the appellant.

5. The Chennai Corporation earlier made an attempt to give this land to its employees for housing purpose by forming a layout. The proposal was later dropped on the basis of the legal