V K VEERARAGHAVA REDDY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 25.5.1995 made in G.O.Ms.No.430/Revenue Department and to issue necessary directions for resumption of land in S.No.324/1A1B in Tambaram and thereafter to assign the said land to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts required to be noticed in detail are as follows :- The disputed land along with some land was intended to be utilised for a Chavadi. The present respondent No.3 had applied to the Government to allot a portion of the land for the purpose of running an Arabic School. Ultimately the Government had decided to place 23 cents (present disputed land) at the disposal of the respondent No.3 subject to the condition that the respondent No.3 should purchase a private land measuring 10 cents in S.No.329/1B1 of Tambaram Village and place such land at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of utilising such alternative site for construction of a chavadi. The Respondent No.3 was also required to pay the land value for the excess extent of 13 cents and also to pay Rs.83/- to the contractor who already started some work prior to such allotment by the Government. Ultimately an order was passed by the District Revenue Officer on 17.4.1963 placing such land at the disposal of the respondent No.3 for running an Urudu Madrasa (Arabic School). It was indicated : The grant is subject to the usual conditions laid down in B.S.O.24 Appendix and also to the following special conditions: (1) That the land should be used only for running the Arabic School and for no other purpose. . . . The aforesaid action was impugned in W.P.No.616/63 which was disposed of rejecting the contention of the then petitioner that the land had already been vested with the Panchayat and the Government had no power to deal with the matter. Subsequently the respondent No.3 wanted to construct certain shops. At that stage, W.P.No.1482/72 was filed by another person seeking for a writ of Mandamus to cancel the allotment in favour of the respondent No.3 alleging that the third respondent had utilised the land for the purpose contrary to the conditions imposed at the time of allotment of the land. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Government to look into the matter and particularly the representation made by the petitioner within 3 months from the date of the order. Subsequently, alleging that no action had been taken by the Government on the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.No.1482/72, the present petitioner and another person made representation before the Government and since there was no response from the Government, the present petitioner and the other person filed separate writ petitions, namely W.P.Nos.7717 and 7718 of 1981 respectively with the same prayer in both the writ petitions to resume the land. In W.P.No.7717 of 1981, filed by the present petitioner, a prayer was also made for granting the land in favour of the present petitioner and in the other writ petition prayer had also been made for allotting the land for the purpose of constructing a community hall. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 29.11.1989. It was noticed in the aforesaid writ petitions that pursuant to the direction of this Court in the earlier W.P.No.1482/72 that out of 23 cents, 10 cents were granted on assignment in exchange of 10 cents of land offered by the respondent No.3 and in respect of balance of 13 cents of land, a direction had been issued to the respondent No.3 to pay certain amount as apparently there had been some violation of the conditions. It was also brought to the notice of this Court, the present respondent No.3 had filed representation against such direction of the Government regarding additional amount and the matter was pending before the Government. Keeping in view all these aspects, both the writ petitions were disposed of with the observation that the prayer of the writ petitioner to cancel the assignment had become infructuous and liberty was given to the present petitioner as well as the other petitioner to approach the Government by filing appropriate application. It was further directed that the representation made by the present respondent No.3 regarding payment of additional amount should also be considered. Thereafter, after a loss of about 5 to 6 years, the present impugned order dated 25.5.1995 has been passed, wherein the representation of the present petitioner to allot the land in his favour had been rejected and it has been further observed that the present respondent No.3 is not required to pay any additional amount.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that since the school has not been constructed on the allotted land and same was used for commercial purpose, the grant in favour of the third respondent should have been cancelled and the land should have been allotted to the present petitioner, who was prepared to deposit 5 times of the market value.