9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.72/31 situated at Chinnathimmapur village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District, as the Appellant-State having sold the land on payment of market value could not have placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land and such restrictions were void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'TPA'). The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced hereinbelow: - "7. Thus, learned Single Judge noted that respondent had purchased the subject land on payment of market value from the Government. On such purchase, respondent became the owner of the subject land whereafter, the same ceased to be a Government land or an assignable land. Having sold the land on payment of market value, the Government could not have placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land by the land owner. 8. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out." ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 2. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-State, submitted that the impugned judgments of the High Court were untenable in law, ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividuals on payment of market value. Illegible within certain limitations. Similar provisions is also available in B.S.O. 24 (empowering the Commissioner, land Revenue and District Collectors to dispose of Government land by alienation....." 4. The relevant portion of the Board Standing Order 24 referred to in G.O.Ms. No.635 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "6. Condition for the grant of State land:- (i) Lands at the disposal of Government:- A grant of State land whether for religious, educational or other public purpose should always contain the following conditions:- (1) The land shall be used ......................and for no other purpose. (2) The Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any buildings thereon, in the event of the infringement of any of the conditions of the grant. In the event of such resumption no compensation shall be payable for any improvements that may have been effected, or other works that may have been executed on the land by the grantee and the grantee shall not be entitled to the repayment of any amount that may have been paid to the Government for the grant. If there are buildings on the land the Government may direct the grantee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sy.No. 72/31 an extend of Ac.3-01 gts., situated at CHINNA THIMMAPUR Village, Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet Revenue Division, Medak District A.P. (hereinafter called the SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY) which is more fully described in the schedule of property but due to personal work I am not looking after the affairs of the said property personally as such I am not in position to deal with the intending purchase, as such I hereby empower and authorize my Attorney Mr. SYED JAVED S/o late S.G. MOHIUDDIN to deal with all the matters contained to him with the following powers......" 9. Mr. Reddy lastly stated that the Power of Attorney holder had cut a colony by the name 'Eden Orchard' on the land allotted to the Respondent-Trust and even some of the plots had been sold to third parties without disclosing the conditions on which the initial allotment had been made. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 10. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the Respondent-Trust contended that the subject land was sold by the State Government after following the due procedure stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 635 dated 02nd July, 1990, wherein the District Collector, Medak in consultation with the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving perused the paper book, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise for consideration in the present proceedings, namely: - i. Whether alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 8th February 2001 was a sale or alienation/allotment? ii. Whether any condition was imposed pursuant to the alienation of land by the Government of Andhra Pradesh? and iii. Whether any condition/restriction imposed by the State Government would be violative of Section 10 of the TPA? REASONING ALIENATION OF LAND BY APPELLANT-STATE WAS NOT A SALE BUT AN ALLOTMENT UNDER A STATUTORY SCHEME 15. Before answering the aforesaid issues, this Court is of the view that it is essential to outline the relevant facts. The land in question to the extent of Ac. 3.01 gts., falls under Sy. No.72/31 and is Government land as per entries of record and was declared as Government (Poramboke) land in the year 1989. 16. Further, the Respondent, being a charitable trust, had applied for allotment of land. A charitable trust can use land for charitable purposes only. 17. The request of the Respondent-Trust was processed as per the instructions lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted. The relevant portion of the Respondent-Trust's reply dated 29th November 2011 is reproduced herein below: - "...I, further state that there are no such violations in the conditions laid down in the District Collector Medak Proceedings No.E3/7542/98, Dt.8.2.2001. After taking the possession the above land is being utilized for the purpose alienated. Class room, sheds were constructed within two years through our own funds..." ( emphasis supplied ) 20. It was also specifically averred in the writ petition filed by the Respondent- Trust that as the Appellant-State had offered the land as per G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 2nd July 1990 subject to three conditions vide proceedings No.E3/7542/98 dated 08th February 2001, the Respondent-Trust had followed the same 'scrupulously'. Consequently, the Respondent-Trust's argument that no specific purpose of allotment was specified is false to the Respondent-Trust's knowledge. HIGH COURT FELL IN ERROR IN MAKING OUT A CASE OF SALE 21. In fact, the case of the Respondent-Trust in its writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge was not that it was a case of sale, but it had been as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
