Madras High Court
K.Veerukannian vs The Chief Secretary on 2 January, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.7678 of 2009
1.K.Veerukannian
2.S.Kannanju ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
Education Department,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Theni.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating with the order passed by the fourth respondent in
Na.Ka.1763/A1/09 dated 22.06.2009 and quash the same and in
consequence directing the respondents to re-convey our lands,
measuring 1 acre 60 cents comprised in S.Nos.325/3,5,6,8 and 9 in
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Poothipuram Village, Bodinaikanur Taluk, Theni District by
officially cancelling the gift deed dated 14.08.2001.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
For Respondents : Ms.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
2.The petitioners gifted the land in question for construction an additional school building. The donation was made as early as on 14.08.2001. It is a registered document. A mere reading of the said document would indicate that the donation was made for a specific purpose.
3.The school was however upgraded by constructing the additional building within the existing premises itself. Therefore, the land gifted by the petitioners was not required for putting up the additional construction. Therefore, the petitioners wrote to the department to reconvey the gifted land. The petitioners' request was rejected by the impugned order dated 22.06.2009. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.The Government had filed a detailed counter affidavit and opposed the request made by the writ petitioners. The stand of the respondents is that the land is now been used as a school playground. The stand of the Government has been specifically denied in paragraph No.8 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner produced a photograph which indicates that the ground in question is not being used as a play ground. In any event, the purpose of the gift was only to enable the respondents to construct the building for housing the Higher Secondary section of the school. Admittedly no such construction was put up. Therefore, the very purpose of the gift failed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue on hand is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.11.2017 in W.A.No. 1448 of 2017 held as follows:
“8.In Tahsildar Pollachi and another vs.P.Bagyalakshmi, judgment dated 30 October 2017, in W.A.No.836 of 2017, a similar issue regarding gift of land for constructing school building and the claim for return of the land on the ground of non utilization came up for http://www.judis.nic.in 4 consideration before this Court. While directing the Government to consider the request, this Court made the following observation:-
The gift of the land was given for a specific purpose. The construction of school building in the name of the donor was the sole object of the gift. There is a marked difference between acquisition of land and the demand for reconveyance later on account of the failure to utilise the land for the purpose for which it was acquired and a gift of land for a particular public purpose and claim made by the donor for return of land on the ground that the land was not used for the particular purpose for which it was gifted. In case, it is a compulsory acquisition for a public purpose, the scope of re-conveyance under Section 48-B is very limited. The Government must be satisfied that the land was not used for the specific purpose and it is not necessary for any other pubic purpose. Then only, the question of re-conveyance would arise. However, in a case of this nature, when the purpose of gift failed to materialise, the donor would be justified in claiming the land back. There is no right for re-conveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is only a right to consider the request for re-conveyance. However, that is not the case in case it is a conditional gift for construction of school building, hospial, etc., and on account of subsequent events or efflux of time, the object is no more in existence. In case a request is made by the donor on account of the non-accomplishment of the purpose for which gift of land was given, the Government must consider such request giving due weight to the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 wishes of the donor which executing the gift deed donating the land for the purpose indicated therein.
9.Similar issue came up for adjudication before the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in M.Thiyagarajan v.The State of Tamil Nadu and others [2017-2-Writ L.R.349]. The donors gifted about 25 acres of land of establishing Karur Government Medical College at Kuppuchipalayam Village. The Government accepted the gift and issued an order sanctioning funds for construction of medical college. The Public Works Department awarded contract to a local contractor for construction.
Subsequent inspection of land by the Director of Medical Education found that the land was not fit for establishing a medical college on account of its locational disadvantages. The Government therefore decided to take another land owned by a Religious institution in exchange of the gifted land. In the meanwhle, Karur Municipality, resolved to allot 20 acres of its prime land in Karur Town for construction and establishment of Government Medical College. While so, the donors, the contractor and a local politician filed writ petitions before the Madurai Bench to direct the Government to establish the medical college at the land gifted by the donor. The Writ Court granted interim stay and restrained the Government from changing the location. Another writ petition was filed in public interest to accept the municipal land. The Division Bench following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abraham T.J. V. The State of Karnataka [2017 (7) Scale 641] held that it is the prerogative of the Government to select the land for establishing medical college and there http://www.judis.nic.in 6 is no legal right to claim that only the land gifted by the donor should be used for the public purpose. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the donors and upholding the decision taken by the Government to accept the land offered by the Karur Municipality, the Division Bench directed the Government to return the gifted land to the donors on account of the subsequent events.”
6.Respectfully following the aforesaid Hon'ble Division Bench decision, this Court sets aside the order impugned in this writ petition.
7.However, I am of the view that there is no need to remit the matter to the file of the respondent. Since, the facts are not in dispute, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reconvey the petitioners' land in question, by cancelling the gift dated 14.08.2001. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
02.01.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pnn
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
To
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
Education Department,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Theni.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
pnn
W.P.(MD)No.7678 of 2009
02.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in