Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3. The Collector of Coimbatore District, Coimbatore v. C.B.M.Sakunthala, Memorial Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.4.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.A.No.2677 of 20011. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3. The Collector of Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. .. Appellantsvs.C.B.M.Sakunthala, Memorial Trust,rep. by C.M.Ramraj.. Respondent Writ Appeal against the order of this Court dated 9.7.2001 inW.P.No.3743 of 1995. The Petition presented to this Hon'ble Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ ofCertiorari calling for the records in respect of G.O.Ms.No.208,Revenue Department (L2) dated 22.2.95 issued by the firstrespondent, and quash the same.For appellants : Mr.K.Elango, Spl.G.P. For respondent : Mr.AL.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Ishtiaq AhmedJUDGMENT(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Sathasivam,J.)The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of thelearned single Judge dated 9.7.2001 made in W.P.No.3743 of 1995, inand by which, the learned Judge, after accepting the stand taken bythe writ petitioner-Trust, quashed the impugned Government Order andallowed their Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed inthe Writ Petition.3. According to the petitioner-Trust, in the year 1973, theManaging Trustee of the petitioner-Trust applied to the firstrespondent-Government of Tamil Nadu, seeking permission forassignment of 42 acres of land to start Arts and Science College inSundakkamuthur Village, Coimbatore District. Based on the report ofthe District Collector and the educational authorities, the firstrespondent, after satisfying about the need and bona-fide of thepetitioner-Trust, issued G.O.Ms.No.2557 of Revenue Department, dated16.12.1975 and directed that the lands measuring 39.79 acres inS.No.131/1, 131/4, 131/7 and 181 of Sundakkamuthur Village,Coimbatore Taluk and District, be placed at the disposal ofC.B.M.Sakunthala Memorial Trust for establishment of a College freeof land value, but on collection of land revenue, stone value andtree value, subject to the usual conditions under Board's StandingOrder No.24 and also subject to the special condition that the landsshould not be utilised for any agricultural purpose. 4. After getting the above mentioned order from the Government,according to the petitioner-Trust, it took immediate steps to getaffiliation for the College from the then Madras University. At thattime, the mandatory requirements under the statutes of the thenMadras University for 40 acres of land was minimum required for theestablishment of a College in a non-urban area. Thereafter, theaffiliation was granted by the University to start a College as afirst grade College. The College was formally inaugurated on1.7.1994. The College was imparting education for the under-graduatecourses duly affiliated to Bharathiyar University. On the date offiling of the Writ Petition, it is stated that it has the strengthof over 1100 in the day college alone. Apart from the day college,the petitioner-Trust is also having an evening College in the samecampus as per the conditions of affiliation given by the then MadrasUniversity and the evening College has two courses. The totalstrength of both the day college and the evening college comes to1300. The College is an aided College recognised for the purpose ofgrant-in-aid under the grant-in-aid Code by the Government of TamilNadu. After the formation of Bharathiyar University, the College isaffiliated to the said University in 1984. It is further stated thatthe College has to its credit several University rank holders andgold medalists under various disciplines. 5. While so, a noticewas issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, dated31.10.1991 to the petitioner-Trust stating that the Collegebuildings are spread over an extent of 6.35 acres only andtherefore, the balance of about 33 acres out of the total extent of39.79 acres remain unutilised by the College and that from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amounts collected from the students, no facilities for the studentshave been provided in the vacant lands. Pursuant to the said notice,the petitioner-Trust submitted a reply dated 27.11.1991, giving allthe details. It is further stated that without reference to all thedetails furnished in the reply, the Government passed the impugnedorder dated 22.2.1995, seeking resumption of an extent of 14.25hectares of land. Questioning the same, the petitioner-Trust hasfiled the Writ Petition for quashing the said Government Order.6. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, Deputy Secretary toGovernment, Revenue Department filed a counter, reiterating theconditions of assignment stating that except 6.35 acres, remainingpart of the lands were kept unutilised about 15 years and afteraffording opportunity to the petitioner to submit their explanation,the ultimate order was passed by the Government. 7. The learned Judge, after considering the rival contentionsand taking note of General Conditions under B.S.O.No.24 of specialcondition to the effect that the land should not be utilised foragricultural purpose and after satisfying that there is no violationof any of those conditions by the Trust, quashed the order of theGovernment and allowed the Writ Petition. Questioning the saidorder, the Government and their officers preferred the presentAppeal.8. Heard learned Special Government Pleader for appellants aswell as Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondent-Trust.9. The only point for consideration in this Appeal is whetherthere was any violation of conditions of assignment and whether thelearned Judge is right in quashing the Government Order seekingresumption of unutilised lands.10. There is no dispute that on the basis of the application ofthe petitioner-Trust, a report was called for from the DistrictCollector. Based on the report/remarks of the Collector concerned aswell as the purpose for which the lands were sought for assignmentand perusing the remarks of the concerned educational authorities,the Government passed an order assigning an extent of 14.25 hectaresof land (39.79 acres) in S.Nos.131/1, 131/4, 131/7 and 181 ofSundakkamuthur Village, Coimbatore Taluk and Coimbatore District. Itis also not in dispute that the assignment was made subject to twoconditions, namely one is condition under Board's Standing OrderNo.24 and another, of special condition to the effect that the landsshould not be utilised for agricultural purpose. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. It is relevant to point out that the show cause noticedated 31.10.1991 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.After referring the assignment made in the Government Order dated16.12.1975, the officer has mentioned that out of the total extentof 39.79 acres, the Trust had constructed buildings only in an areaof 6.35 acres and the remaining 33 acres are lying vacant and notbeing utilised for any purpose for several years. To put it clearthat in the show cause notice, except the fact that the extent of 33acres are lying vacant and not utilised for any other purpose, noother reason has been stated so.12. On the other hand, in reply dated 27.11.2001 by the Trust,they referred to various courses that are being offered, otherbuildings such as class rooms, library, hostel, laboratory,auditorium, play ground, etc. It is also stated that they prepared amasterplan for bringing out more buildings in the near future. Inthe same explanation, the Trust also assured that the assigned landswill be utilised only for educational purposes and the same will beutilised in a phased manner. 13. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, while passing theimpugned order dated 22.2.1995, the Government has not taken note ofthe details furnished in the reply dated 27.11.1991 by the Trust. Itis not in dispute that even according to the Government, the Trusthas not utilised those vacant lands for agricultural purpose or haveany plan to use for such purpose in the future. In suchcircumstances, it is clear that the petitioner-Trust has notviolated the special condition mentioned in the assignment order.14. Now, we have to consider whether the petitioner-Trust hasviolated the general conditions under B.S.O.24. Among the variousconditions, condition No.6(i) and sub-clauses 2 and 3 read asfollows:"6. Condition for the grant of State land-(i) Lands at the disposal of Government:- Agrant of State land whether for religious,educational or other public purpose shouldalways contain the following conditions:(1) ......(2) The Government may resume the landwholly or in part with any buildings thereon,in the event of the infringement of any of theconditions of the grant. In the event of suchresumption no compensation shall be payable forany improvements that may have been effected,or other works that may have been executed onthe land by the grantee and the grantee shallnot be entitled to the repayment of any amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that may have been paid to the Government forthe grant. If there are buildings on the landthe Government may direct the grantee to removethem.The land, if utilised for commercialpurposes, when the grant is made free of landvalue, the beneficiary shall be liable to paythe market value of the land either totally orfor the portion converted into commercialpurposes as decided by the Government. 3. The Government may resume the landwholly or in part, with any buildings thereon,if in the opinion of the Government the land isrequired for a public purpose or for conductingmining operations. In the event of suchresumption or in the event of the acquisitionof the land for any reason, the compensationpayable for the land and trees, shall in nocase exceed the amount paid for them by thegrantee or their value at the time ofresumption or acquisition whichever may beless."15. It is clear from the above condition No.6(2) and (3) thatin the event of the infringement or violation of any of theconditions of the grant, the Government is free to resume the entireland assigned or part with any buildings thereon. In the event ofsuch resumption, as per the second condition, no compensation needbe paid for any improvement. The same condition makes it clear thatif the assigned land is being utilised for commercial purposes, thebeneficiary shall be liable to pay the market value of the landeither totally or for the portion converted into commercialpurposes as decided by the Government. It is not the case of theGovernment or the other authorities that the assigned lands arebeing utilised for any other purpose, much less for commercialpurpose. Condition No.3 makes it clear that if in the opinion of theGovernment, the assigned land is required for a public purpose,they are free to resume the land wholly or in any part. 16. We have already referred to the reasons stated in the showcause notice. Admittedly, it is not the case of the Government orthe other officers that the land is required for a public purpose.In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioner-Trust, even the condition No.3does not attract.17. All the above mentioned relevant aspects have been dulyconsidered by the learned Judge. In fact, after considering theclaim of both sides, the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has specifically made it clear that if there is any specificviolations of the conditions of allotment or any illegal activitiesby the Management in the land in question, the Government is free toissue a proper show cause notice and take further action only afterdue enquiry. In such circumstances and in the absence of any othercontra material, we do not find any valid ground for interference.On the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the conclusionarrived at by the learned Judge. Consequently, the Writ Appeal failsand the same is dismissed. No costs.csSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3. The Collector of Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.24452+ 1 cc to M/s. N. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate SR No. 24207AKR(CO)SR/21.4.2007W.A.NO.2677 of 2001