Karnataka High Court
The Academy Of General Education, ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 4 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: ILR2002KAR2194, 2002(3)KARLJ270
Author: H. Rangavittalachar
Bench: H. Rangavittalachar
ORDER H. Rangavittalachar, J.
1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed off.
2. Petitioner is an educational institution registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act and established for the main purpose of providing education in various disciplines. For establishing such institutions, petitioner applied for the grant of land to the State of Karnataka. Appreciating its need, the State by its Grant Order No. RD 83 LGU 57, dated 15-2-1958 granted in all 114 acres 71 cents at Manipal. The grant stipulated that the entire extent of land must be utilised for education purposes in the manner stated in the grant, conditions are to be found at Annexure-B.
3. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the grant, petitioners utilised the entire land only for the educational purposes by putting up constructions for colleges, schools, hostels, sports activities etc. However petitioner received a show-cause notice by the State Government vide Annexure-L, dated 24-8-1999 to show cause why the grant of 47.7 acres should not be cancelled and the land be treated as vested in the Government on the ground that petitioners have violated the conditions of the grant by putting up hostel constructions in the land earmarked for playground besides demanding from the petitioners a sum of Rs. 66 crores 93 lakhs for unauthorisedly using the land for different purposes. The show-cause notice was duly replied. The State Government not being satisfied with the reply given have passed the impugned order vide Annexure-A, dated 9-10-2000 ordering resumption of 47.78 acres and also demanding the amount stated above. This order is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the following grounds;
(a) that no enquiry was conducted by the State Government in pursuance of the show-cause notice before passing the impugned order;
(b) the power was sought to be exercised after an unreasonable length of time viz., about 42 years, is unreasonable, same is liable to be quashed. Sri Shevgoor, learned Counsel for petitioner has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Govindappa v. State of Karnataka, for the proposition "State Government should have exercised the power of resumption of the granted land even if there was any violation within a reasonable time". Having not done so, the exercise of power is not proper.
4. State has filed a counter. In the counter, it is contended by the State that when the grant was made with a condition that petitioner should use the lands only for the purpose for which it was earmarked and if such a condition is violated, Government being the granting authority has always power to resume the grant.
5. There is no dispute of the fact that the lands were granted on 15-2-1958 vide Annexure-B and in the grant, different parcels of land in various survey numbers are earmarked for different purposes. The complaint by the State is not that the petitioner has utilised any part for non-educational purposes; petitioner has only rearranged its activities connected with education to suit the topographical situations of the land and for the benefit of the students and the institution. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any violation of the terms of the grant; that apart, regarding the exercise of power of resumption, it is well-known that whenever a power of the State has to be exercised, the same should be done within a reasonable time, what is reasonable time may depend upon the facts of each case. Inaction on the part of the State Government for 42 years and at this point of time raising its eyebrow for technical infractions cannot be said by any standards as a reasonable exercise of power.
6. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned order of the Government is liable to be quashed for the reasons that the power is sought to be exercised after an inordinate delay of 42 years more so on technical grounds.
Rule made absolute.
No costs.