SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1215

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
Aginati Ravi Kumar and Another - Petitioners 
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad and three others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.27037 of 2014
Decided On : 21-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy.
For the Respondents: Sri M.Sahas Reddy, Asst. Govt. Pleader for Revenue.

A donor has the right to reclaim land if it is not used for the specific purpose for which it was gifted.

Headnote:(A) Land Revenue Act, 1951 - Relinquishment of land - Petitioners donated land for construction of a Mini Sports Stadium, which was not constructed, and requested reconveyance of unused land - Respondent refused based on relinquishment of rights - Court found that since the land was not used for the intended purpose, the petitioners were entitled to reconveyance. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 16, 17)

(B) Gift of land - Specific purpose - The court emphasized that if the purpose for which land was gifted fails, the donor has a right to reclaim the land. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners donated 6.00 Guntas of land for a Mini Sports Stadium but only 2.00 Guntas was used for building a school without their consent. The petitioners sought restoration of the remaining 4.00 Guntas as it was not utilized for the intended purpose.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the reconveyance of the unutilized land.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners retained rights to the land after donation and if they could reclaim it due to non-utilization for the intended purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the respondents must reconvey the land as it was not used for the purpose intended by the petitioners, reinforcing the principle that failure to utilize gifted land for its intended purpose justifies reclamation by the donor.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, impugned Memo set aside.

ORDER : 

K. SARATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Memo No.B/1127/2014, dated 30.07.2014, whereunder the respondent No.4 refused to restore and reconvey the unused land, which was donated by the petitioners for construction of Mini Sports Stadium admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas in Sy.No.859 and 860 situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal.

2. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that both the petitioners have jointly purchased an extent of Ac.27.01 guntas of land situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal of erstwhile Nalgonda District through registered sale deeds in the year, 2003 and they were also issued pattadar pass books in respect of the said lands. While the things stood thus, at the request of local MLA and the elders they have donated their land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas in Sy.Nos.859, 860 and 861 for the purpose of construction of Mini Sports Stadium and accordingly the same was alienated in favour of District Sports Development Authority, Nalgonda vide letter No.138/2005 dated 17.03.2005, but in spite of lapse of nineteen years from the date of donation of the land the Stadium was not constructed in the land. But, Kasturba School Building was constructed with the funds under Rajiv Vidya Mission in the donated land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas, without consent of the petitioners.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners made application to the respondent No.4 for restoration of their donated land as the same was not utilized for specific purpose for which they have donated. In response thereto, the respondent No.4 vide impugned Memo dated 30.07.2014 informed that since the petitioners have relinquished their right in the donated land and though Stadium was not constructed and the said land being used for Government purpose and therefore patta cannot be restored.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that out of Ac.6.00 Guntas of land donated by the petitioners, Karsturba School was constructed only in an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas and the rest of Ac.4.00 Guntas is kept vacant and therefore the petitioners are requesting for restoration of remaining Ac.4.00 Guntas of land and therefore sought a direction to the respondents to reconvey the balance Ac.4.00 Guntas of unused land and requested to allow the Writ Petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions, relied on the following Judgment:

1. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi Vs. P.Bhagya Laxmi , 2017 SCC Online Mad 33945

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 would submit that the respondent No.4/Mandal Revenue Officer taken over possession of the land to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas donated by the petitioners, for the purpose of construction of Mini Sports Stadium. Since the Mini Sports Stadium was not constructed, out of the donated land, an extent of Ac.2.00 Guntas was given to the Kasturba School. At the time of construction of school building, the petitioners have not raised any objection and the petitioners have voluntarily donated the land for the benefit of public in the year, 2005 and therefore it is not possible to redeliver the land and in the future the Mini Sports Stadium will be constructed and there are no merits in the Writ Petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue in support of his contentions, relied on the following decision:

1. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Ernakulam Vs. Abdul Karim Mohd (Dead) by LRs., (1991) 3 SCC 520. 

9. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are the owners of the land to an extent of Ac.27.01 Gun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top