Dr. Gurram Lakshminarsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana

daled 21 11 1 12024 in writ Petition No.27037 ot 20l 4 on the fite of ilr, High court. Between:

1. Government of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad- Revenue

2. The Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4. The Tahsildar, Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..,APPELLANTS AND 1 Aginati Ravi Kumar, S/o. Kotaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ- Agricuqllure, Rlo. H.No.7-3-163, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram Haweli, Khammam Town and District.

2. Ravuri Bixamaiah, S/o. Baswaiah, a Plot No.404, D.No.1 1-10-730/6/23, Town and District ged about 61 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o. K.R.Residency, Burhanpuram, Khammam ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of order dated.21111l2O24 passed in W.P.No.2703712014, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.SASIDHAR REDDY, REP.FOR SRIR,S.SUMITH RAJ The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ) IN THE HIGH COI,TRT FOR THE STATE OF TELATi( ANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSIICE SRI APARESH KT.rI/I TR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDI) N AND TRIT PETITION I PILI No.1 2 OF 2025 AND WRIT APPEAL Nc 1O9 OF 2025 DATE: 08.12.2O25 WRIT PETITION PIL No.12 OF 2O25 Bct\\'ccn Dr.(]urram Lakshminarsimha Reddy. AND Peti tione r The State ol Telangarra, rep. by its Chicf Secretarl to Government, Munrcipal Administration and U rb;r n Developn'rcrrt l)epartment, Secretariat, HJ,dcrabad and 8 others ResponCents Appellants Re sponrlen t s WRIT APPEAL No.lO9 OF 2025 Bctu,ccn Govr:rnmenL of TcLangana, Rep. by its Principal Sccretary, Reventre Department, Secretarait, Hydcrabad and 3 otltcrs AND Aginati Rar,,i Kurnrar erncl another i \ I 2 COMMON JUDGMENT Since the issues that arise in the above writ petition and writ appeal are integrally one and the same, the writ petition and writ appeal are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 and W.A.No.lO9 of 2025, though instituted through separate proceedings, pertain to the same subject property admeasuring Ac.6.00 gts in Sy.Nos. 859, 860 and 861 ot Mothkur Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri (erstu'hile Natgonda) District. The principal question that arises for determination is whether land relinquishe d in favour of the Government under Form-C of the Telangana Land Revenue Rules, 195 I (tor short 'Rules 1951') for a specified public purpose may thereafter be reconveyed to the original owners, and whether any such exercise is legally sustainable.

3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No. 12 of 2025 is referred hereinafter as 'petitioner'.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2O25 and appellants in W.A.No. lO9 of 2025 being off-rcial respondents, are relerred as 'State'. 5, Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W.P.(PIL) No.12 ot 2025; respondents in W.A.No.109 of 2025 and writ petitioners in a -) W.P.No.27O37 of ')Ol4 being one and the same rre referred as 'respondenl Nos.7 and 8' for the sake of adjudica.: ;n of the case.

6. Heard Sri Dr. Kadiri Krishnaiah, learne<l r petrtioners in W.P.(PIL) No. l2 of 2025; Sri E.',r ounsel fur the rnkata Reddy, learned Gor..ernme nt Pleader for Municipal Adnr -ristratiotr and Urban Development Department appearing for re in W.P.(PIL) No. 12 of 2025; Sri Muralidhar F ;pondent No. 1 eddy Ka tram, learned Government Pleader for Revenuc Depart r ent appcaring for appellants in W.A.No. l09 ol 2O2S and responrl and 6 in W P.(PIL) No.i2 of 2025; Smt.Gudil leamed counsel rcpresenting Sri p.Krishna ll rnt Nos.2, 4, 5 ,ati Sharvani, rddv, learned counsel lor respondcnt No.3 in W.p.(pll-).No.l2 r 1 2025 and Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing S Raj, learned counsel for respondent Nos. z W.P.(PIL).No. I2 of 2O2S and respondents Nos ri R.S.Sr-rmith and 8 in I and 2 in W.A.No. 1O9 of 2O2S and perused the record. 5 Chronology of litigations 7. W.A.No. lO9 of 2O2 has been preferred by the I tate asszriling the order of the learncd Single Judge dated ) l.l1.2O24 rn W.P.No.27O37 of 2014, whereby the learned . r Ldge dirccted reconveyance of Acs.4.OO gts of the subject lancl t> the original donors (responden ls he rein) on the premise lhir lhe spt:cific 4 public purpose for which the land was relinquished, i.e., for construction of a Mini Sports Stadium had not been fufrlled.

8. W.P.{PIL )No.12 of 2025 has been instituted by one Dr. Gurram Lakshminarsimha Reddy, a public-spirited citizen, seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the State from reconveying the aforesaid Acs.4.00 Gts to the original donors, contending that the land, being Government property held in public trusL and presently in use as a school playground and cannot be divested. Compendium of facts 9. Thc ccntralizcd facts imperative for adjudication of the prcscnt casc, arc as follows: i. That respondents in W.A.No.109 of 2O2S (hereinafter referred to as 'the donors") were the original pattadars of land in Sy.Nos.858 to 861 of Mothkur Villagc. ii. [n the year 2005, at the instance of the local MLA and village elders, the donors voiuntarily executed Form,C rclinquishment deeds under Rule 16 of the Rules 195 1, relinquishing an extent of Ac. 6.O0 gts in Sy.Nos.859, 860 and 861 for the purpose of construction of a Mini Sports Stadium. iii. The Mandal Revenue Off'rcer, Mothkur, accepted the relinquishment, mutated the land in favour of the ) Government, and took possession uide pr;ceedings dated

22.O3.2005. IV Out of lhe donated extent, Ac.2.00 Grs vr:re utilized for construction o[ a Kasturba Gandhi Balill r Vidyalaya (for short'KGBV'), which has been functioninp ;jnce 2013. The remaining Ac. 4.00 Gts. intended fc>r he Mini Sports Stadium, remained unutilized on acc I rnt of alleged paucitv of funds. VI. In thc year 2014, Lhe donors sought rt: toration of the unutllized lancl; hon'ever, thc Tahsild r. rejected the request through Me mo No. B / 11,-,,' I 2Ol4 dated 30.O7 .2014, stating thzrt rhe land continulr to be required for gove rnmcntal purposcs. Aggrit:ved, thc donors filed W.p.No.27O37 .,f 2014, which was allowed by the learned Single Judgc rn 2l .11.2A24, directing reconveyance ol Ac. 4.00 Gts to tlr m. VIIl During this pcriod, the petitioner in W. I ,. plll No. 12 of 2025, tt senior citizen and resident of Mr I ekur, filed the present Public Interest Litigation asserting that the said land is being uscd as a playground by sc:- toi children of KGBV and that its reconveyance rvould )e contrary to public interest. 6 \ Submissions of the appellants in W.A.No.tO9 of 2O2S

10. Learned Government pleader submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory nature and consequences of the relinquishment executed by the respondents. lt is contended that the donors voluntarily executed Form-C under Rule 16 of the Rules 195i, relinquishing an extent of Ac.6.00 gts in Sy.Nos.859, 860 and g61 for a construction o[ a Mini Sports Stadiu, which relinquishment deeds executed on stamp papers and duly signed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, constituted absolutc and unconditional relinquishment of rights in the lands. 1 1. I t is argued that upon receipt of the Form-C applications, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the statutory notification calling for objections, and no claims were receivcd. Consequently, the MRO passed orders dated 22.O3.2OO5 in Progs.No.C/ I38/2OO5, cerrifying the retinquishment, deleting the donors' names lrom the revenue records, and mutating the land in favour of the Government, and the possession was also formally taken on O 1.04.2005. It is thus submitted that the relinquishmenI attaincd finality, and the donors stood divcsted of all right, title and intcrest in the said lands.

12. The Government Pleader placed reliance on Rule 23 of the Rules 1951, u.hich pcrmits u,ithdrawal <f6 'Razinama, only f'; 7 before the order excluding the pattadar,s nanr, from the land records is passed. In the present case, the don: -s, names stood deleted long back in 2005; thcrefore, the respr ndents had no statutory right to seek withdrawal or rest rration of the relinquished land.

13. It is further submitted that the learn: i Single Judge erred in treating the relinquishment as akin to e ;onditional gift. A statutory relinquishment undcr Rule l6 is nor 1>verned by the principles of conditional donation under the Tra I ;ler oi property Act, but is a unilateral abandonment ol'rights, ar thorised under the Land Revenue Act and Rules. It is subn.L: _t_ed that once relinquishment deed is certificd and sanctiotrc, as per Land Revenue Act, the property vests absolutely in tt- : Government, free from a1l encumbrances or equities and cannt,r lte revoked. 14. The appellants contend that the subsc<p rent utilization of Ac.2.O0 Gts for construction ol a KGBV Schocl being a public institution catering to nearl_v 27O students was f tlly within the ambit of "public purpose,, and cannot be c:-rstrued as a deviation defeating the object of the donatiorL The balance Ac.4.O0 Gts out of total extent of Ac.6_OO (it: being vacant, continues to remain earmarked for the stadium, z: d tl_re delay in construction is solciy due to paucity of funds. Thr rdrninistrative / 8 sanction for the stadium continues to subsist, and steps have been taken to seek release of funds from the Sports Authority.

15. The appellants submit that the Tahsildar,s memo dated

30.O7.2014, rejecting the request for reconveyance and stating that the land was rcquired for "government purpose", merely used an imprecise expression in place of "public purpose" and cannot alter the legal position that the lald continues to be needed for the approvcd public purpcse of establishing a stadium.

16. On the above grounds, the Government Pleader contends thaL the direction of thc learned Single Judge to reconvey Ac.4.00 Gts to the donors runs contrary to the statutory scheme of the Land Revenue Act and Rules; is inconsistent with the vesting of the land in the State, and undermines a public projcct, stilI actively pursued by the administration. Submissions of the respondents in W.A.No.1O9 of 2o25

17. Learned counsel for the respondents-donors affirmed the impugned order and submitted that the relinquishment executed in the year 2005 was not an unconditional or absolute surrender, but one made for a clearly specihed public purpose, for construction of a Mini Sports Stadium in Mothkur Village. It is contended that the purpose was explicitly recorded in the 9 Form-C, and the entire act of donation was motr\ atecl and guided by assurances from public representatives and revenue authorities that a stadium would be established cr the benefit of the local youth.

18. Learned counsel submitted that althorr5 r nearly twenty years have elapsed since the execution of the -elinquishment, the stadium has not been constructed, an(l the remaining Ac.4.00 Gts have been left vacant without anr,' ,ublic usc. It is submitted that as subject land is donated or r,: inquished for a specific purpose, and the Government faited to r tilize it for that purpose, the respondents-donors reLain an cr1 rrtable right to seek restoration of the unutilized portion. L9. The respondents placed reliance on the . udgme nt of the Madras High Court in Tahsildar, Pollachi Taht e v. p. Bhagga Lakshmil , r,r,herein it was held that u,hcn lan: donated lbr a specified public purpose is not utilized, thc Gor < rnme n L cannot retain it indefinitely, and the unutilized portion r r -rst bc restored to the donor. Learned counsel submitted that r I I principle laid down therein squarely applies to lhe present ca; ., as the cause and purpose of the donation have entirely failed It u,as fur[her contended that the learned Single Judge corre: ly appreciated that the State had abandoned the originat pll - )ose, ancl that ' (20 17) SCC Online Mad 33945 10 continued retention of the land was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-,{ of the Constitution. The order directing reconveyance of the unutilized Ac.4.O0 Gts is therefore legal, equitable, and justified. Submissions of the petitioner in W.P.(PIL| No.12 of 2O2S

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the proposed reconveyance of Ac.4-00 Gts in Sy.Nos.859 and 860 to respondent Nos.7 and 8, contending that the land stood validly relinquished through Form C (Rute 16) Relinquishment dated

17.O2.2OO5, and pursuant thereto, patta was transferred to the Government ulde proceedings No.C/ 138/2005 dated 22.03.2005. It is submitted that once such relinquishme nt had taken effect, the land vested absolutely in the State and formed part of public trust for the communiry.

21. It was submitted that the land is being effectively utilized for a public purpose, such as establishment of Kasturba Gandhi Girls High School (constructed in 2O 1 1 and functional since 2013), and the remaining Ac.4-OO Gts. is in continuous use as the schooi playground for more than a decade till date. Thus, the subject land constitutes an essential public utility, and its alienation back to private parties would defeat the very purpose underlying the voluntary donation.

22. rndividuals. Any The learned counsel by invoking the Dc :trine of public Trust, submitted that once land is vested in thr jtate for public benefit, the Government functions as a trustee iL Ld is restrained from divesting or translerring such prop( I rv to private attempt to reconvey lhe lan j would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by impal_r rg the public,s right to access and enjoy a vital communit5z r,; o11rss. In this regard reliance was placed on the principles lair dou,n bv the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehto. v, Kamq.l Nat p, mandating stringent juclicial scrutiny whenever public proper 1. rs sought to be diverted lor private gain. Memo

23. already Learned counser also emphasi zed that t',r Tahsildar had rejected the donors, request for resto'r tion through No.B/ 1 127 /2014 dated

30.O7.2074, categoncally recording that the land continues to be requirecl 1.:. Governmenl purposes, and therefore, restoration of patta was r npermissible. The said order, not having been challenged, has at ained finalily and binds the official respondents. 24. We have taken note of the respective conter lrons urged. Consideration by this Court 25. In this regard, this Court considers it r I propriate to a - srng in the delineate and frame points for consideration ' 1toot1 t scc 388 I I l matter, so as to facilitate a proper and orderly adjudrcation of the CASE. I. Locus Standi and MaintainabilitY Of PIL

26. The petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.12 of 2025 is a resident o[ the locality with no personal or private interest. The petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements under the Telangana PIL Rules, 20 15. The issues being raised in the instant matter pertains to protection of government land, enforcement ol public trust obligations, and safeguarding recreational space for school children squarcly lailing within recognized domains of public interest titigation. In view of the above, thc present PIL is maintainable, and the petitioner possesses the requisite loans standi II. Dispute as to Nature and Legal Effgct of Form-C Relinquishment

27. It is pertinent to note that the foremost issue concerns the nature and legal effect of the relinquishn-rent executed by the donors under Rules 195 1 . As per Rule I6, a Form-C relinquishment is a statutory mode by which a pattadar surrenders his rights in patta land in lavour of the Government. Once such relinquishment is duly executed, accepted by the competent authority, and mutation is effected under Rule 23, the transfer of title to the State becomes complete, and the vesting becomes absolute, uncond$jqgal and free from encumbrances, unless the Form-C itself rncorporates spr:ific conditions governing its operation. Rule 16 of the Rules I )51 is extracted hereunder: Rule I6. Relinquishment of la:rd:_ A registen.r relinquish his land by submitting alr I razinnma in writing to the Tahsildar or Nrr beforc the end of April in any year. Such ri; not bc stamped but shall be in Form declaration therein shall be attested by two witnesses. The patwal shall, if requested to c registercd holder, write the ra-zinama hirr: chargu-rg an1. fees for the same. If the razinam r by the Patwari, he sha_ll alfix his signaturc I words written on the lower left hand cor r razinarna. The Tatrsildar or Naib Ta}-rsildar, i may bt.. who rcceives such razinama shall cc.r own h:rnd according to the certificate prescrr l 'C'. Ht sha]l exercise due care in ascertaininr of thc person who has signed the ".-". .ro,l, that such notice has been duly. endorsed as - requircd. The relinquishment shall have efft.c close of the current year. holder may rconditional b Tahsildar nama need )' and the resl;ectable r so by the ,lI withoLrt is preparcd elteath the :r- of suc:h s lhe casc fy ir in his rrl irr Fortn hc irlenti r 1- thstanding :reinbefore from the 2a. In the present case, the relinquishment t ccds (trxhibits P-2 and P-3) do not contain any clause stipulat r g reversion of the land to the donors upon non _construction ol t re Mini Sports Stadium. The recital of the intended purposc s, at best, a declaration of the motivating objective for the reii I luishmerit. It is settled law Lhat purpose or motive, unless eml)() licd as a legal condition, does not restrict the absolute nature of r Llch statlltory transfers

29. It is ro be noted that as per Rule 23 of thc lules ! 951, it permits withdrawal of relinquishment only prior to hc passing of 14 the mutation order. However, in the present case, the Tahsildar having accepted the relinquishment and mutated the land in favour of the Government as early as 22.03 .2OO5, the donors, statutory right to withdraw stood extinguished. Ruie 23 of the Ruies 1951 is extracted hereunder: RuIe 23. Procedure when razinama is wrthdrawn:- A registered holder whose radnatna has been certifred may withdraw the same at any time before the order for excluding his name from the lar-rd re'uords has been passed in Jamabandi, by submitting an application in writing to the Tahsildar withdrawing his razinama. On receipt of such application, the Tahsildar shall not take any further action on tine razirrarna ald sha]l pass ordcrs that the patta of the land sha.ll continue in the name of the applicalt. Thus, the donors application for restoration in 20 14 was, therefore, legally untenable and impermissible. III. Dispute as to the applicability of the Public Trust doctrine and its Constitutional imperatives

30. The principie that the State holds public property in trust for the people, and such lands cannot be alienated lo private individuals contrary to public lnterest was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (Supra 2)and in other subsequent cases. It mandates that government land, particularly where it is being utilised for public welfare, must be preserved for collective benefit. The relevant para is extracted hereinunder for ready reference: I5

34. Our legal system - based on EngLish c,r includes the public trust doctrine as p - jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of z resources which are by nature meant for putl enjoyment. Public at large is the benefrciary r shore, running waters, airs, forests ald e fragile lalds. The State as a trustee is under rt to protect the natural resources. These resour for public use carnot be converted rrt ownership- nmon lau, rt of its ll natural c use and f the sea- ;ologically tegal duty res meant r private

31. In the present case, part of the relinqrr shed land has been utiliscd lor establishing a KGBV, and the emaining land has been continuously used as a playground b1, ,chool child ren for several years. Such sustained public us: gives rise to legitimate expecta[ions and confers substanti\ ( rights under Articles 21 and 2l-A of the Constitution, relatin 3 to the right Lo education and the right to development of childrer

32. In this regard the Tahsitdar,s rejectio L order dated 3O.O7.2014 rightly nelss that the subject land : )ntinues to be required for governmental purposes (pubiic purpo e). The Stale's obligation is not merely to preserve title but to ut I in a manner that advances public welfa 1 se public land . Thus, the reconveyance of land to private individuals, afte - crystallisation of public rights would offend the public trust doctr ne. ) I6 IV. Dispute as to whether relin uishment constitutes a conditional

33. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge,s reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk (Supra 7/, which dealt with a conditional gift deed containing an express stipulation for reversion, is inapplicable to a statutory rclinquishment under Form_C, where the vesting flows directly from the statute and operates independent of any subjective purpose stated by the donor. 34. Even assuming that some semblance of a purpose condition existed, the land has been partly utilised for another public purpose, i.e., for the construction and fur-rctioning of a school, and the remaining extent has been earmarked for the sladium. Non-utifisation of the remaining extent due to paucity ol funds cannot by itself trigger any reversion of the property to the donors who stood divested of the property. Conclusion

35. In light of the foregoing discussion and the lindings recorded hereinabove, this Court is constrained to conclude that the said land having been relinquished under Form_C and mutated in favour of the Government, vests absolutely in the State. The donors have no residual right, title or interest. The land being held by the State in public ,6{ u.,a its present utilization for a school and as a playground subserves \ 17 unquestionable public interest and any reconve./ rnce of the said land to private individuals would be impermi ; ;ible, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 2l and 2l_A of th(. Constitution of India.

36. In this regard, the order of the learnc I Single Judge dated 2 1 . 11.2024 is set aside and W.p. No. 2., t3Z of 2Ol4 is dismissed.

37. Accordingly, W.A.No. IO9 of 2O2S and W. ' (PIL) No.12 of 2025 are allowed with the following directions: i. The official respondents_State are directed r lt to reconvey, restore or in an1, manner transfer of the latr I admeasuring Ac. 4.00 Gts in Sy Nos. 859 and 860 of Mot respondents No. 7 and g (the donors) or an tkur Village to . other private party. ii. The official respondents are directed tr_r protecr the said land for the use o[ the Kr r Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) School and as zr 1 Lhe students as is now. being used or for tlr rraintain and turba Gandhi layground for construction of a stadium upon receipt of funds from thc c rncerned. iii. To rakc appropriarc steps. including surveillance, if necessary, to prevent any er( fencing and roachment or unauLhorized claim over the land. l8 \ As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII To, SD/.K.SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Chief Secretarv D;;"6;;;njb""-o.5nill?,,Gs%1?ljl:li#rygl:r"xef#1?H1:ln3;,or'oun ' [:iJll"ffi?lr*?il?lsfl; Revenue Department, secretariat, Hvderabad, 3 The [vunicipar commissioner, Mothkur Municiparity, yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dist. 4. The Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 5. The District Collector, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District 6. The Addl. Collector, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 8. The Tahsildar, Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9 The Mandar Revenue officer, Mothkur Mandar, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. 'l0.One CC to SRt Dr. KADTRI KR|SHNA|AH, Advocate tOpUCl 11. One CC to SRt P.SAS|DHAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 12.One CC to SRt R.S.SUMITH RAJ, Advocate tOpUCl 13.One CC to SRt PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 'o ly3"B?:otffiron REVENUE, Hish court for the slate of retansana at 15 Two CCs to Gp FOR MCP^L ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of 16.Two CD Cooies Telangana at Hyderabad toun - ' vr rs'rrr .,r-v! i3* (n- -_-...rr-I \ .\ \\. . -.r. _. -.-. r t/", -z::-:_r::::- -/ " ( \,/i' "'' ?2 Eti 2w \'\-- r)r i ' , '\ HIGH COURT DATED: 08112t2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WRIT PETIT|ON (ptL).No.1 2 of 2025 WRIT APPEAL No.109 of 2025 ALLOWTNG BOTH THE WP(P|L) & WA, WITHOUT COSTS /-)-- 7-\