Donor has the right to reclaim land if it has not been used for the intended purpose stipulated in the gift, underlined by the necessity for the government to honor the conditions of the donation.

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. 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