CASE TITTLE: M/s. Sweekaar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped, Secunderabad v The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department
CASE NO: WRIT APPEAL No.1179 of 2023
ORDER ON: 17.05.2024
QUORUM: JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present writ appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.5175 of 2020. The facts leading to the present petition in question, is that the petitioner started an Academy of Rehabilitation Sciences at Secunderabad called Sweekaar which was a non-profit and non-commercial voluntary organisation which was aimed at rendering services to the mentally challenged, physically disabled and was thus a Multi-speciality Rehabilitation Centre. It is stated that the institute run by the petitioner is the first of its kind in India and runs various training programmes viz. Diploma, Degree, PG and Ph.D. courses, all of which are recognised by the State and the Central Government as also the Universities and the Rehabilitation Council of India, It is also stated that considering the contributions made in the field, the then Chief Minister Dr.Y.S.R. Reddy, requested sSweekar to start a campus in Kadapa District to serve the mentally challenged and disabled in the Rayalaseema area. It is stated that pursuant to the aforementioned request, a parcel of land measuring ten acres was granted at a nominal cost, subject to the terms and conditions as laid down under Order 24 of Board of Revenue Standing Orders, Revenue Department,The land was allotted in the name of the petitioner society i.e., Founder and Chairman, It is further stated that an area of approximately ten thousand square feet has been constructed over the land in question while the boundary has been well marked with cement poles and barbed wires, further it is stated that the institute being run by the petitioner is stated to have been functioning for the past fourteen years and while being so came to be received by the petitioner from the District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa stating that the land alienated to the institute had not fully been utilized except to a small extent and thus, conditions of alienation under B.S.O.24 had been violated. The petitioner was accordingly asked to show cause as to why the land measuring nine acres sixty five cents, which remain unutilized by the grantee/petitioner be not resumed and called for an explanation within fifteen days. Response, was submitted by the petitioner that the dream of the organisation could not be accomplished by keeping thirty five cents out of the ten acres and therefore, it was suggested that the entire ten acres with buildings and furniture be surrendered. Financial support to the extent of seven crore was also sought by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner institute was a charitable organisation which had not received any help from the Government or the corporate sector and that there was a financial crisis. Finally, an order came to be passed by the District Collector, to the extent that land measuring nine acres which remained unutilized by the petitioner be resumed. The Tahsildar, Kadapa was instructed to take over the possession of the aforementioned land from the Chairman of the Sweekaar Rehabilitation Institute.The order of resumption came to be challenged before the learned single Judge, who by virtue of judgment, dismissed the same by holding that the purpose for which the land had been allotted had not been achieved and that the petitioner was not imparting education in the said institute and returned a finding that the petitioner institute has discontinued admission from the academic year 2016-17 due to financial problems. Hence, the present letters patent appeal.
LEGAL ISSUES:
- whether the resumption order could legally and justifiably be issued, only because the entire extent of land granted in terms of B.S.O.24 had not been fully utilized by the petitioner, for the purposes for which it was granted ?
- whether such a non-utilization of the rest of the land would said to be in violation of the B.S.O.24. 17?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Order 24 of Board of Revenue Standing Orders talks about Placing State land at the disposal of a person, an institution or a local body and exemption for land revenue and clause(6) talks about Condition for the grant of State Lands at the disposal of Government
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the institute was not imparting any education from the said premises was without any basis. With reference to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, the counsel further draws the attention to documents which include the consolidated statement of attendance of various candidates, who had attended the academy and undergone courses between 2022 and 2024.the counsel further placed documents on record reflecting appointment of external examiners for practical examination scheduled to be held on 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 for the examination centre which was identified as „Sweekar Academy of Rehabilitation Sciences at Kadapa‟.the counsel, thus urged that on facts, the learned single Judge was not justified in law, in upholding the order impugned passed by the Collector.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court on hearing both the sides, observed that, The learned single Judge, could not have gone into the question as to whether the petitioner was at all conducting its activities from the premises in question as that was never the scope of examination before the learned single Judge. further the court observed that the conditions for grant have not been specifically placed before us. However, the purpose of the grant can be deduced in view of the Government Order bearing number G.O.Ms.No.1405 dated 03.11.2007, for the purpose of setting up Rehabilitation Institute. Admittedly, the institute has been established, although its functioning may not be up to the desired level as is sought to be suggested by the Government. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that this was an institute which was one of its kind in the entire Andhra Pradesh, which caters to the needs of that category of mentally and physically challenged citizens which appear to have not received the priority which it ought to have received either from the Government or from the public or the private sector. the court opined that , the resumption order is unsustainable, inasmuch as, firstly it was never the condition of the grant that the entire land would be utilized for construction nor did the Government at the time of giving grant approved a vision document, on paper containing the layout plans, etc., which were required to be achieved, commensurate with the milestones fixed by the Government in that regard. The Government would have been justified in resuming the land in question by invoking B.S.O.24 (6) (2), only if the petitioner instead of running a service oriented institute had opened a hotel or a bar for serving drinks or for any other matter unconnected with the purpose of the grant. This, however, is not the case before us.the court further observed that, it may be true that land is a natural resource, which is becoming scarce by every passing day on account of the increase in human activity in diverse fields, unless the world discovers another planet which is fit for human habitation, yet the grant made in accordance with law cannot be permitted to be resumed on grounds which are unsustainable.the court further opined, B.S.O.24 (6)(2) could never have been invoked for resumption of nine acres on account of non-utilization of that portion of the land in question.further the court observed that If the institute like the petitioner is the only kind of the institute in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, then steps ought to have been taken by the Government in ensuring that the institute is nurtured in a way that its services, which are sought to be provided through the institute, actually are fortified for the benefit of the mentally challenged as also the physically handicapped. The court also observed that entire process of resumption of nine acres of land appears to have been initiated after a report had been submitted by the Tahsildar, Kadapa, pursuant to the issuance of Government Order which authorises the District Collectors to cancel the alienation and resume the land by following due procedure, in cases where the allotee had not utilized the land „for the purpose for which it is allotted or had changed the purpose‟.the court further observed that the institute was set up and continues to operate as can be seen from the documents placed on record, which shows not only that the students were undergoing the courses but were also taking the examination from the said institute.Hence, the court quashed the judgment and order impugned,and set aside the same. Accordingly, the court allowed the present writ appeal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by: Sowmya.R
