Dismissed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Ashok Kumar

Telangana HC5 Jul 2021WA/245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by a Central University against dismissal of its writ petition challenging a Government Order resuming its land and exchanging it in favour of private respondents to satisfy a decree against the University. The University had itself proposed and consented to the exchange and never challenged the modified interim order or the exchange deeds. Appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Ashok Kumar — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 425 OF 2021

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 05-07-2021 passed in W.P No. 3502 of 2009, on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep by its Registrar.

¶9

...AppellanUWrit^petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

Special Chief Secretary, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad.

¶14

4, Pgpyty Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

B.Naveen Kumar, S/o Late B Shankaraiah R/o. 8-2-6181211lA, plot No. 171 Road No. 11, Ba Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶16

Boorgu Venkatgshwar Rao, S/o Late B Shankaraiah, Aged 75 years, Occ.Business Rl o.8-2-61 8 l2l 1/A,^plot No. 1 71 Road No: 1, Banjarafiiils, Hyderabad - 34

¶17

Smt. Boo-rgu Radha, W/9: BoolSu Venkateshwar Rao Aged 64 years. Occ. Housewrfe Rlo.8-2-6181211/4, Plot No.171, Road No l t Eanlardnills Hyderabad - 500 034

¶18

B. Sri Boorgu Sandhya Malkud, W/o Naresh l,4alkud Aged 47 years, Occ.Housewife R/o.8-2-618l2l1 /A,^plot No.171, Road No.1i Banjarahiils, Hyderabad - 500 034

¶19

!qt,-!ogrg_q Padma, W/o Sri Naveen Kumar Aged 59 years, R/o.B-26181211lA Plot No.'1 71 , Road No.1 1 Banjarahiils, Hydeiabad - 500 034.

¶20

Smt.^Boorugu Harini, D/o Sri Naveen Kumar Aged 34 years, Ryo.g-26181211lA Plot No.171 , Road No.11 Banjarahills, Hyderabad - 5OO 034.

¶21

Boorgu Rajeqh Kumar, V9 qo_orgu llqrasimha Rao Aged 54 years. Occ. - - Not-known to the Petitioner Fl/o.B-2-d1BlZl1 tA, plot No.1 7T, RoaO'fVo.t t, Banjarahills, Hyderabad - 500 034

¶22

12.Sri loorgu -Narasimha Rao, S/o B.Shankaraiah, Aged74 years, Occ . Doctor Rlo.8-2-6181211/A, Plot No.'1 71 , Road No.11, Banjirahilts,'Hyderabad - 500 034

¶23

13 Smt Krithika.Rudrangi, W/o Sri Ramesh Rudrangi Aged 42 years, Occ. Housewife Rlo 8-2-618121ilA,^ptot No.171, Road trto] 1 Banjarahiils, Hyderabad - 500 034).

¶24

Union of lndia. lVinistry of Education (Formerly Human Resource Develolment) Lal Bahadur Sastri Smriti, l,4au[ana Azad Rd, Bal Bhawan, ManSingh Road Area, NewDelhi, Delhi 110001 Rep. by its UnderSecretary'

¶25

15 U.nion bf tnta,..Vin;stry gf.f r1-a1qe, 3rd ftoor, Jeevan Deep Buitdini, Sansad Ivlarg, New Delhi, Dethi 110001 Rep. by its Under Secretdry.

¶26

lvlrs.P.Sucharitha, D/o.Sri D.Srinivas Goud, W/o.Sri p.Srinivas Goud, Fyo.H.No.3-1 1-41011, Shiva Ganga Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad-s00 OZa.

¶27

17.D.Sai Charan, S/o.Sri D.Srinivas Goud, R/o.H.No.B-2-293iDl9. lndira Naoar. Kamalapuri Colony, Phase-lll, Banjara Hills, Road No.2, HydeiabaO_SOOtCi.

¶28

(Rgspondent Nos.16 & 1 7 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 23_032022vide lANo.1 of 2022inWANo.42S of iOZl)

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

lA NO:^'t OF 2021

¶31

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 05.07.2021 in w.p.No. 3502 of 2009, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶32

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶33

Betwee n:

¶34

B.Naveen Kumar, S/o Late B Shankaraiah Rl/o. B-2-61812t1tA, plot No. 171 Road No. 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - S00 034.

¶35

. . . Petitioner/Respondent No.5

¶36

AND

¶37

University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep by its Registrar.

¶38

.. RespondenUPetitioner

¶39

The State of -Telangana, Rep. by its^principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶40

¶41

¶42

Special Chief Secretary, Chief Commissioner of^{Land Administration,} Hyderabad.

¶43

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad.

¶44

Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally^{lvlandal Ranga Reddy} District.

¶45

Boorgu Venkateshwar Rao, S/o Late B Shankaraiah,^{Aged75 years,} Occ. Business N o.8-2-61⁸ l2l 1/A, Plot^{No.1 71 RoadNo.1 1, Banjarahills,} Hyderabad - 34

¶46

Smt. Boorgu Radha, W/o. Boorgu Venkateshwar^{Rao Aged 64 years, Occ} Housewife Fl/o .8-2-61812111A, Plot^No.171 ,^{Road No.1 1 Banjarahills,} Hyderabad - 500 034

¶47

Sri Boorgu Sandhya Malkud, W/o Naresh Malkud^{Aged 47 yearc,} Occ.Housewife No.8-2-6181211/A, Plot^No.171 ,^{Road No.11 Banjarahills,} Hyderabad - 500 034

¶48

Smt. Boorgu Padma, Wo Sri Naveen Kumar^{Aged 59 years,} E9.B:2-6181211lAPlot No.171 , Road No.11 Banjarahills,^{Hyderabad- 500 034.}

¶49

Smt. Boorugu Harini, D/o Sri Naveen Kumar^{Aged 34 years, R/o.B-2-} 6181211lA Plot No.171 , Road No.11 Banjarahills,^{Hyderabad - 500 034.}

¶50

Boorgu Rajesh Kumar, S/o Boorgu^{Narasimha Rao Aged 54 years.Occ.} Not known to the Petitione r No.8-2-61\l2l1lA, Plot^No.171 ,^{Road No.1 1} , Banjarahills, Hyderabad^- 500 034

¶51

Sri Boorgu Narasimha Rao, S/o B.Shankaraiah,^{Aged74 years, Occ.} Doctor R/o.8-2-61Bl2l1lA, Plot No.'171, Road^{No,1 1, Banjarahills,} Hyderabad - 500 034

¶52

13.Smt. Krithika Rudrangi, W/o Sri Ramesh Rudrangi Aged^{42 years,Occ.} Housewife Rlo.8-2-6181211/A, Plot No.171, Road No.11 Baniarahills, Hyderabad - 500 034).

¶53

Union of lndia, Ministry of Education^(Formerly Human Resource Development) Lal Bahadur Sastri Smriti, [Vaulana Azad Rd, Bal Bhawan, lr,4an Singh Road Area, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 Rep. by its Under

¶54

.^Secretary

¶55

Union of lndia IVlinistry of Finance, 3rd floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 Rep. by its Under Secretary.

¶56

Mrs. P.Sucharitha, D/o.Sri D.Srinivas Goud, Wio.Sri P.Srinivas Goud, Rl/o.H.No.3-1 1-410/1 , Shiva Ganga Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad-500 074.

¶57

1 7. D.Sai Charan, S/o.Sri D.Srinivas Goud, Rl/o.H.No.8-2-293lD/9, lndira Nagar, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase-lll, Banjara Hills, Road No.2, Hyderabad-500 033.

¶58

(Respondent Nos.16 & 17 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 23-032022vide lANo.1 of 2022in WANo.425oI 2021)

¶59

Res ponde nts/Res ponde nts

¶60

¶61

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the interim orderdated oB/09/2021^{inlA NO. 1/ 2021 in wA No. 42512021.}

¶62

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI A.SUDARSHANREDDY,Sr.Counsel for} M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'5:SRIVIVEK JAIN}

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.6 to 13: SRI RAVINDRA SHRIVASTAVA,} Sr.Counsel for SRI R.SUSHANTH^REDDY

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.14& 15: SRI N.RAJESHWARRAO,} ' Asst. Sol.Gen.

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.16^{& 17: SRI A.VENKATESH}

¶68

The Court delivered the following:

¶69

HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA} AND

¶70

HON'BL^{E SRI JUSTICEABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI}

¶71

W.A.No.425^{of 2O21}

¶72

JUDGMENT: (P..r tlon'bte StiJustice^{Abhina d K1lnarShauili)}

¶73

This Writ^{Appealis filed aggrieved by the orders} passed by the^{learned Single Judge in W'P No 3502 of} 2oo9 dt.05-07^-202t.

¶74

Heard Sri^{A Sudarshan Reddy' learnedSenjor} Counsei for^{the appellant-University' learnedGovernment} Pieader for^{Revenue appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 4'} Sri Vivek^{Jain, learned counsel for 5'h respondent' Sri} Ravindra^{Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing} for Sri R.Sushanth^{Reddy, learned counselfor respondent} Nos.6 to^13.

¶75

It has^{been contended by theappellant} University^{that it was establishedby the Parliament under} Article 371^{(d) (e) of the Constitution of india and the State} was pleased^{to allot 23OO acres of land in favour of the} appellant^{University ati(ancha Gachiboq'liwith the}

¶76

¶77

¶78

condition^{that the land should be used only for the} purpose^{of education and technology-and if the land is not} tobeusedforanyotherpurpose,u,ithoutobtaining permission^{from the State government' the land s'ill be} reverted^{back to the State Government The appellant} Uni,rersity^{had furthercontended that after the State} Government^{has allotted23OO acres in its favour' it has} establishedaCentralUniversitywhichiscalledaS University^{of Hyderabadand constructed a compoundwall} and at^{present, the appellantUniversity isimparting} education^{in variouscoursesto the students'}

¶79

4.LearnedcounselfortheappellantUniversity hadfurthercontendedthattheappellantUniversityisone of the reputed^{universitiesin the country' He had further} contended^{that one Sri S'Lingamaiah had filed O'S'No 193} of \982^{on the file of the Additiona-l District Judge'Ranga} Reddy District,^{against the appeliant Universityand also} the State^{of Andhra Pradesh seeking possession of land} admeasuring^{Ac'25'I6 gts in Sy' Nos'14 and 16 to 23} situated at^{KanchaGachibowli' Seriiingampally Mandal'}

¶80

¶81

Ranga Reddy^{District as he was claiming ownership of the} said iand. Learned^{counselfor the appellantUniversitv} had further contended^{that the said suit was decreedin} favour of^{Lingamaiah on lg-02-L994'Thereafter'the} appella:rt University^{has preferred First Appeaii ' e '} A.S.No. iO34 of^{lgg4 before this Court and during} pendency of the^{First Appeal,Lingamaiah had expired and} his lega1 reprsentatives^{werebrought on record and finally'} the First Appeal^{was dismissed vide judgemntdt'17-11-} 2001. Thereafter,^{the legal heirs of Lingamaiah have filed} E.P.No. ll of^{2OO2 for execution of judgment and decree} dt.19-02-^{1994 ln O.S.No.193 of 1982 and in pursuanceof} the orders^{passed in E.P.., the land admeasuring Ac'25'i6} gts in S1'.^Nos. i4,^{16 to 23 rvas deliveredto the 1egal heirs} of Lingaiah^{on 31-0 1-2003But the said land had no} approach road.^{Ultimately the appellant Universityhad} conceded the^{requestof the lega1 heirs of Lingamaiahfor} providing alternative^{main land keeping inview the} impending security^{problemswhich may arise due to entry} of the strangers^{into the appellant Universityand the} Executive Council^{on 24-12'2003, resolved to provide}

¶82

¶83

)

¶84

alternative land admeasuring^{12' 17 gts situated in between} IIIT and Sports village in lieu of^{Ac.25.16 gts and the said} proposal was sent for approval to the^{Governmentthrough} proper channel. The District Collector^{who inturn} for*,arded the same to the Chief Commissioner^{of Land} Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,^{vide letter} clt.0B-03-2004 and thereafter, on 11-04-2005,^{tl-ie District} Collector has forr,r,arded a letter .issued^{b5' the Chief} Commissionet' of Land Administration^{raisingcertain} quarries to the appellant University, to which the appellart University submitted its reply emphasizing^{the need for} according sanction for exchange of land.^{However, ttle} proposal of the appellant University was rejected^{by the} State Government vide Memo dt.2O-72-2OO5.^Later, W.P.No.27316 of 2005 was filed before^{this Court by the} land owners seeking implementation of^{the proposalof} exchange ol land and the said Writ^{Petition was disposed of} by this Court on 30- 12-2005 with^thefollowing observation:

¶85

"The learned Standing^Counsel for^{the respondent} has placed before the Court the copg^{of the letter, dcLted}

¶86

¶87

¶88

20-12 2OO5,^{oddressedbg the Special ChiefSecretary} to Gouemment,^{through uLtich, ttte proposal subnitted} bg the respond.ent^{t'uas rejected'In that uieu of the} matter, no directions^{can be issued in this regard'lf the} petitioners ttaue^{ang problem's in the matter of enjoging} the land in^{question,theg haue to work out tleir} remed.ies^{in the Ciuil Court"'}

¶89

The counsel^{for the appellanthad contended} thatthelandownershaveSubmittedyetanother representation^{on 30-O 1-2006 expressingtheir inclinatton} to accept^{the land intu'o dilferent locations'Lcarnccl} counsel^{lor the appellant University had further conter'rdeci} that the 1"'^{respondent had issued the impugnedG O'} directing the^{District Coilectorto resume the land to an} extent of Ac.25.31^gts' 1n Sy. No.37^{from the apPeilant} University^{and handover the same to the land owners'} ignoring the^{fact that on an eariier occasion'the land} owners have^{agreedfor exchange of land admeasuring} 'Ac,12.77 gts in lieu of Ac'25'16 gts' The State^Government has no authority^{to issue G'O'Ms'No'1473 dt'70-12-2018} toresumethelandoftheappellantUniversityand handover to^{the unofficial respondentswithout the consent} ol- the aPPellant^{U niversity}

¶90

¶91

Learned counsel for the appellant Universitl' had further conlended that originally, Lingamaiah has lilecl O. S. No. 1 93 of 1 982 against the appellant University as r'vel1 as the State Government and^."vhen the suit preferred b1' Lingamaiah was dismissed against the State, the State Llt ought not to have allotted Ac.25.31 gts in Sy. No.37, favour of the unofficial respondents. Challenging the action of the State Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.1493, the appeilant University has filed W.P.No.3502 of 2OO9 belore this Court.

¶92

Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that in the said Writ Petition at the time ol admission, this Court was pleased to grant interim order on 20-02-2009 sta-ving all lurther proceedings pursuant to C.O.N,ls.No.i473 dt.fO I2-2OOB ar-rd the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the State Gorrernment ought not to have issued the said G.O. in favour of unofficial respondents, more so, when the suit preferred by Lingamaiah was dismissed in respect of the State Government.

¶93

¶94

Learned^{counselfor the appellant had further} contended that^{thelearnedSingle Judge u'ithout} appreciating^{an1' of the contentions raisecl bl the appellant} University^{had mechanically dismissedthe writ Petition '} Aggrieved^{by the same, the presentWrit Appealis filed'} Learned counsel^{for the appellant had furthercontended} thatwhentheunofficialrespondentshaveagreedfor exchange of^{Ac'12.17 gts in lieu of their original claimof} Ac.25.16^{gts, the State Governmentought not to have} issued G.O.Ms.No.1473,^{more so, when theState} Government has^{allotted 2300 acres of land in favourof} the appellant^{Universityand the State Government is no} more the^{ownership of the said extent of land so as to} enable them^{to pass an order of exchanging the land of} University^{in favour of unofficialrespondents'Therefore'} appropriate^{orders be passed in the Writ Appeals setting} asidetheorderofthelearnedSingleJudgeinWP'No'3502 of 2009^{dt.Os-O7'2021.}

¶95

g. Sri Ravindra Srivatsava,^{learned Senior} Counsel, appearing^{for the respondentNos'6 to 13' had}

)

contended that the suit^{preferred byLingamaiah} O.S.No.193 of 1982 was decreed^{against the appellant} University vide orders dt.l9-O2-1994^{and the appellant} Universit'y itself has passed resolution^{on 24-12-2OO3 for} allotment of alternative land to an extent^{of Ac. i2.17 gts in} favour of the unofficial respondents in order^{to honour the} decree passed by the competent Civil Court^{in O.S.No.193} of 1982 dt. 19-02-1994 and subsequently^{the appellant} University vide letter dt.27-02-2006^{had in principle agreed} for exchange of land to arr extent of^{Ac.21.00gts in Sy.} No.37 of Gopannapally village in lieu of^Ac.25.31gts situated in Sy. No.14 and 76 to 23 of^{KanchaGachibouli} and in pursuance of the request made^{by the appellant} University only, and in order to honour^{the decreepassed} by the competent Civil Court in^{O.S.No.193 of1982} dt. 19-02-1994, the State Government has^{rightly issued} the said G.O. and the interim orders^{granted by this Court} on 20-O2-2009 staying of a1l further^{proceedingsin} pursuance to the said G.O.Ms.No.l473 dt.l0-12-2008^ri'ere moclified u'hen vacate staq' application filed^on

¶100

¶101

O2-O9-20O9 and the said interim orders u'ere modified in

¶102

the follorving manner:

¶103

"The impugned G.O. is proposing to exchange onlg Ac.4.31 gts of land in excess of the proposals made by the Uniuersitg. TLrus, it is made clear that the stag order granted is onlg to an extent of Ac.4.31 gts and the Uniuersitg is at libertg to hand ouer the tand of Ac.21.00 gts as per the said G.O. in respect of the remaining land of Ac.4.31 gts in Sg. No.37, the Uniuersitg shalL maintain status quo as of todag."

¶104

Learned Senior Counsel for the unoflicial respondents had further contended that in pursuance to the modificatron of interim orders, lhe Statc has also executed exchange deeds in favour ol unoflicial respondents to an extent of Ac.21.00 gts oo 14-04-2011 and unofficial respondents have already constructed buildings in pursuance to the exchange deeds executed^by the State Government in favour of unofficial^respondents. The issue in the present Writ Appeal revolves only to an extent of Ac.4.31 gts. Admittedly, the suit which^was decreed against the appellant University \'as to an^extent of Ac.25.16 gts and the State Government in order^to ensure that entire extent of land covered under decreeⁱⁿ

¶105

¶106

O.S.No.193 of 1982 dt. lg-O2_1994 be honoured and the State has rightly issued G.O.Ms.No. 1473 in favour of the unofficial respondents. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶107

1 1. This Court having considered the rival submissions of the parties is of the considered view that the State Government has handed over 2300 acres of land to the appellant University. Admittedb/, no document could be shown b,v the appellant Universit,r. t hat it is the

¶108

ou ner ol the land. Admittedl-r. the State Government has allottecl 2300 acres of land in lavonr of the appellar_rt U,iversit]' u'a1' back ir-r 1975 rvith a condition that the rand allotted should be used only for education and technologr purpose, and il the land is used for any other purpose, the .State^{Government has reservedright} to resume the land from the appellalt University and the appellant University had also passed resolutions through its Executive Council on 24-12-2003 to allot alternative land in lavour of the unofficial respondents and the said resolution was forwarded to the State Government by taking appropriate

¶109

¶110

action. Later, for the^{reasons best knownto the appellant} University, the appellant^{University had in principle agreed} for exchange of land^{to an extent of Ac.21.00gts in Sy'} No.37 of Gopannapally^{village in lieu ol Ac'25'16gts in} favour of unofficiat^{respotldentsas the appellantUniversitv} has suffered a decree^{in O.S.No.193ol 1982 dt 19-02-1994} and very strangely, the^{interimorderslvhicht'l'ere originallv} granted on 20-02-2009 by this^{Courtwere modified,when} vacate stay application^{was filed, on O2-O9-2OO9 to the} following effect:

¶111

"TtLe impugned^{G.O. tsproposingto} exchange onlg Ac.4.37^{gts of land in excess of the} proposals made bg the^{tJniuersitg.Tlrus, it is made} clear that the staA^{order granted is onlg to an} extent of Ac.4.31^{gts and the tJniuersitgis at libertg} to hand ouer the tand^{of Ac.21.00gts as per the} said G.O. in respect of^{the remaining land of} Ac.4.31 gts in Sy.^{No.37, the Uniuersityshttll} maintain stolus^guo as^{of todct11."}

¶112

and very strangely, the^{appelia:rtUniversitl'has not carried} matter in appeal challenging^{the modification ol the interim} orders and the appellant^{University has also not carried} the matter in appeal^{to the Apex Court by filing an appeal}

¶113

¶114

against the dismissal of First Appeal i.e. A.S.No.1054 of 2Ol4 dt.l7-11-200L. Though the interim orders were modified in the Writ Petition on 02-09-2009, the exchange deeds u'ere executed b1, the State Government in favour of ur-rofficial respondents on l4-04-2014. Even the exchange deeds, ',r'hich r,r'ere executed bv the State Government at the instance of appellant University in favour of unofficial respondents, \'ere also not challenged by the appellant University and by virtue of exchange deeds, valuable land to an extent of Ac.21.00 gts have been passed on to the unofficial respondents in the form of exchange deeds that too at the instance of the appellant Universi[r. The only issue which remains for adjudication is in respect of Ac.4.16 gts ol 1and. Admittedly, the appeliant Ur-riversitl, has not taken any steps to protect its valuable land. The 'appellant University ought to have acquired Ac.25.31 gts from its original ou,ner Lingamaiah instead of contestir-rg the suit and llaving suffered a decree at the hands of Lingamaiah in O.S.No.193 of 1992 dt.19-02-1994 and later, miserably failed in the First Appeal i.e. A.S.No.1O54 of 1994 dt.17-11-200 1, and the appellant University has

¶115

i-:

¶116

not even carried the matter further in appeal to the Apcx Court. Usually this Court rvould have come to the rescue of University in order to protect its valuable land and this Court is of prima facie opinion that the State Government was not justified in issuing G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt. 10-12-2008. More so, when O.S.No.193 of¹⁹⁹² preferred against the State Government was dismissed, it IS appellant University, which has passed resolutions in the Executive Committee agreeing for exchange of^land vvith unofficial respondents and requested the^State Government for allotment of alternative land in fat'our^of unofficial respondents in order to honour the decree '"r'hicl-r ri,as passed b1, the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.^{193 of} l9B2 dt. 19-02- i994 and by virtue of modification^of interim orders on 02-09-2009 also Ac.21.00^gts of land^u'as already passecl on to the unofficial respondents and^they have constructed houses.

¶117

Though the contention of the appellant University contending that the State Government had^no power to issue G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt. 10-12-2008, more so,

the suit preferred by Lingamaiah u,as dismissed against the State Government, and the proper course u'ou1d have been that Lingamaiah and his legal heirs and persons of claiming through Lingamaiah and his legal heirs ought to have filed execution petition before the competent Civil Court seeking execution of the decree is no doubt true and correct. But in the present case, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.lO-12-2OO8 at the instance of appellant University and the appellant Unrversitr,' had passecl resolution s in an Executive Committee agreeir, g in principle for allotment of alternative land in favor:r of decree holders and during the pendenc-y-' of Writ Petition. rvitl-r tl-re modification of interim orders, a large extent of land i.e. Ac.21.00 gts \1'as already passed on to the unofficial respondents and at this point of time, this Court is not inciined to interfere as the much water has flolr,n after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1473 dt.10-12-2008 arrd the appellant University has not challenged the modified interim order in an appeal nor the appellant had not challenged the exchange deed dt.l4-O4-2o14 before anv Conrt of lau

¶122

¶123

¶124

Therefore, at this^{point of time, this Court is not} inclined to interfere with^{the ordersof the learned Single} Judge and that the^{learned Single Judge has rightly} dismissed the Writ^{Petition with the following observation:}

¶125

"The contention^{of the learnedcounsel} for^the petitioner [Jniuersrtg^{that in uieu.tof disntissctlof the} earlier trtril^petition fLled^{bg the uno.fJicialrespondertts} being W.P. No.^{27316of 2005,seeking} implenlentatiott of the^{proposal ofexchange of} Acs.25-16 guntas .fo,^{Acs.12-17gurrtctson} 30.12.2005, the^{unoJJicial respondents ltatte to tuork} out their remedies^{onlg in the ciuil Court doesnot} deserue anA merit^{and has to be rejected. 'l'he earlter} ttnt petition was dismissed^{solely on the ground that} the proposal of the^{IJniuersity wasalreadgrejected} bA the Gouemment^{by the time of heaing of Wit} Petition. Another^{pointraised bg the leatnedCounsel} for^{the petitionerto shotuthat the land allottedto the} Uniuersitg belongs to^{the uniuersitg and that the} State Gouemment^{does not haue ang power} for^r'tthich proposition, the learned^{counsel hc-s retied on is} Section 5(23) of^{the tJntuersityof HgderabadAct,} 1974. Section 5(23)^{of the Llniuersttyof Hyderabad} Act, 1974 reads as^under:-

¶126

"section 5: Powers^{of the Uniuersity.}

¶127

i'li,'r I^t ]1ersr:i/ slrrrll^{/ ,rr .' l;rc l;)lror.!1rrlr,)rr'.rr}

¶128

1i^{j ro} i-j:J^{--!Y /'o,lrlil{irr-s, Loir"(.,'-s.srrr'!,./} /1..'/^{lD ,e.err.(? ri.rrarru,rs,r'ra !,'o(1lt1trr.} '.)iil' '"r'i^i'l ,r,rri ,l:-sr-r.,sr:^{,1,r ri,r:, p,,,;-,,',:,, t t) )!} " "l

¶129

¶130

rnirIrror]ol,/e. irrc/udrtIg^{tnrsl atd} ettd.au'netLt i)topt-l,es lar^{llLe purTroscsoirreU/LiL.rrsilr,r;"}

¶131

Section 5(23) of the^{tlrtiuersitgof Hyderabctd} Act, 1974 stmplg^{giues poluers to the Uniuersitgto} purchase, sell or do tuhateuer^{theg utttntin respect of} the land uthich they are^{holding.There is absolutelA} no quarrel Luith tLte said^{propositionor the pouterof} the Untuersitg if ang^{immouablepropertAis} purchased bg the Ltniuersity^{is soughtto be giuen} anaag, exchanged or alLotted^{to some other person or} institution. But here^{is a case uhere the land has} been allotted to the^{tlniuersitg uideletter} D.O.No.3264/ Cl/ 74-II,^{dated 21,02.1975tttith some} conditions. The^{question as to rtthether theg uill} haue absolute ight^{under the D.O. Letter,dated} 21.02.1975 has to be^{gone into in appropiatecase'} With all due respect to^{the leamedCounsel} for^the petitioner the facts in this^{Wrtt Petition are uery} peculiar and lntnnsic to thts case^{onlg, the Uniuersity} hauing suffered a decree^{and the samehauing} becorne finctt, the^{reliance on Section5 of th'e Act} cannot be of much hetp. Therefore, the ctboue (lrqutnent is rejectecl. C)nce the Uniuersitg^has -sent another^{proposctl,the sLlme uasaccepteclblJ the} Gouentment though not k: the^{liking of the Llniuersity} and the irnpugned G.O tuas^{lssued. 1t ts peftinentto} note that no^{prejudice is causedto the petitioner} uniuersity, as there is no decrease^{in the extentof} tond originattg allotted to the^{untuersitA bg uirtue of} the impugned G.O.^{As the Uniuersitg has got ar"} equal extent of tand from^{the unofficialrespondents} for^{whichtheAare alreadg hauing a decree, the}

ru/-

untuersitg connot haue any grieuance tL,ilh^recJorcl lo the issuance of the impugned G.O. As^{culLecl ottt} frotn the uorious inslances en.unrerated aboue,^the Llniuersity hauing submiLted a^proposctl to the CouerrulTent for exchanging the lcltl.d ancl seeking their permiss[on to exchange the same cannat^noLU contend that the Gouernment does not haue ang^say or authoitA to issue the impugned G.O.^The Gouernment, in its wisdom, has allotted an^{extent of} Ac. 25-31 guntas of land in exchange for the^{land of} Ac. 25-16 guntas belonging to the^unofficial respondents dulg taking into consideration^ttrc market ualue of both the lands and also that^the same is at the comer of the Uniuersitg and^no prejudice will be caused to the Uniuersitg, if the land of Ac.25-31 guntas is exchanged in lieu of^{Ac. 25-16} guntas tn Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23.

¶138

For the forgoing dlscussions and^the reesons, this Court is of the Jirm uiew^{tLLcLt the} challenge to the tmpugned G.O. issued bg^the Gouernment exchanging the subject land to^the unofficial respondents in lieu of the tand^{of Acs.25.16} guntas is tuithout any ments.^'l'he Uniuersity hauing suffered the decree, tultich^{tuasalso conftrmeclin the} first^{appeal by this Court,nouJ cannot turnaround} and contend that tle claim of the^unofficial respondents be confined to onlA to an^{extent of} Acs.21-00 gunts and not for Acs.25'31^guntas. Therefore, this Court does not Jind^{anA merit in the} present utit petitton.

¶139

¶140

¶141

Accordinglg, the Wit Petition is dismissed. Houeuer, in uieut of the peculiar facts of the^present case, the present order came to be passed and this order cannot be cited as a precedent.^The Gouernment should auoid allotting ang^parcels of tand which haue alreadg been allotted to the lJniuersity pursuant to the Cabinet decision and in furtlerance^{of a policgdectsion, and to thebest} ertent possible, safeguard the entire lar"td uthich u-tas oiginalty allotted to the Uniuersity. The Gouentntent should see that no land oJ the UniuersttA is alloluecl to be ertcroached, allotled or^(tnAuau diminished cLn.cl see that tl-te ongtnal extent of land aLlotted lo the Llniuersitg is preserued."

¶142

In vieu, of the aforesaid observations, this Cottrt is not inclined entertain the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha11 stand closed. There sha1l be no order as to

costs.

To,

Sd/. K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ( lr'' SECTION^OFFICER

¶147

r re angana'Ur

¶148

L 2. 3. 4.(o. Bli: EliE One EE E; CC [^iX to^{gi SHii'i SRI A.VENKA} [y6]$H$3;;i,ti:ffi^{neJrqryS I} [f"o""],Ti33[?:""' 7. Two C.^{D. CoPies} B. One SPare^CoPY k-^MRC

HIGH COURT

DATED:23t0312022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.425 of 2021

E s rAr€
1
/.
o)
I B [?? 2022
O
..tls 7!

¶155

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶156

X o<br>aL\ 0

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Venkat Reddy Vs High Court of Judicature at Hyd, and 2 Others

The State of Telangana and 3 Others Vs M/S Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Gopala Ramudu Vs City Civil Court, Hyderabad

K.Rajender Rao Vs Sri M.Hanumantha Rao I.A.S

Gujjula Padma Vs Gujjula Padma and 6 others

Mohd Zahed Hussain Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others