Dismissed

University of Hyderabad, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Jul 2021WP/3502/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge by a central university to a Government order resuming its allotted land and exchanging it with private landowners holding a civil decree. The court held the University, having itself proposed and sought permission for the exchange, was estopped from objecting, dismissed the writ petition, and directed the Government to preserve the University's originally allotted land.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Government directed to avoid allotting land already allotted to the University and to preserve the original extent of land allotted to it.

University of Hyderabad, Vs Government of Andhra… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY^{OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶5

WRIT PETI TION^{NO: 3502 OF 2009}

¶6

Between:

¶7

University of Hyderabad,^{Gachibowli' Hyderabad,Repby its Registrar'} Prof. P.C. Sarangi

¶8

.,.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Government^{of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue} ' Oeoittment, Secretariat, Hyderabad ' , 5;5;;i'ih'i;is;;;tav^{& 6[ieicon1mitsioner of' Land Administration'} Hvderabad. s i#'Dirfi;i Collector,^{Ranoa Reddy District, H.vderabad'} ;. D;;rUb;lioia 1.n.iii?,i,'$;iii'";i"ip;1iv^{tir"n91:r6r'J?i^:Ff"1'-?l'l1i} ; E:[;V";;'Kr.rr,^{slo. Late B. shankaraiah,R/o 8'} " "nouiitr'o. ri, biniat" Hills, Hvderabad -34i ^. g,s,;Pslii:,ia:[:nvii:?-*'i&ilsfi e,:.n''x:ihT3''n A E;i'b;;;;i sfidht;^{Malkud, w/o\areshMalkud} 6 Eli,ii"bi., F;dilr'^{wro sri Naveen.Kumar} ib 11^. 5'i6o6i!u Sri Boorgu^{Raiesh' uarrni, Kurnq":,1} UilE"":[iTilrsimna nao '12.Sri Boorgu Narsrmna xao.'slo^{late Sii B shankaraiah}

¶11

i5.5riiiifi,r,^{Rudrangi, W/b Sri RameshRudrangl}

¶12

(All are R/o H.No.8-2-618/2/1/A'^{Plot No'171' Road No l'1} '^{Banjara Hills'} HYderabad^-34.)

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto issue a^{writ, order or direction'more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of} Mandamus^{decraringthe action of the 1 st respondentin to issuingG.o'Ms'No1473} daled10-12-2008'Revenue(ASN'V)Departmentasillegal'arbitraryandviolativeof Article 300-A^{of Constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirect set aside the same} directingtherespondentslto4toconsultthepetitionerUniversitybeforepassing any order^{for allotting land in favour of the ownerof land admeasuring Ac' 25 16 Gts'} in Sy.No.14,^{16 to 23 of Kancha GachibowliVillage' Ranga Reddy District'} WPMP.^{NO: 4549OF 2009}

¶15

petition under Section 151^{cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleasedto stay all} further^{proceedingspursuant to GO Ms'No 1473 daled 10-12-2008'Revenue} (ASN.V)^{Department issuedby the '1st respondent' pending disposal of the Writ} Petition.

¶16

tA NO:^{1 OF2021}

¶17

Between:

¶18

University^{of Hvderabad, Gachibowli' Hvderabad' Ren bV its.[e31i|lti;;r*t,,Petitioner}

¶19

AND

¶20

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretar/, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶21

Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of, Land Admirristration, Hyderabad.

¶22

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶23

The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampallv Mandal,, Ranqa Reddv District

¶24

B. Naveien'Kumar, S/o. Late B. Shankariian, nyoi 8-2-1Bl2t1l,,, Ftot tto.'tzt,

¶25

Road No. 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34.

¶26

Sri Boorgu Venkateshwar Rao, S/o late Sri B. Shankaraiah

¶27

Smt Boorgu Radha, W/o Sri Boorqu Venkateshwar Rao

¶28

Sri Boorgu Sandhya Malkud, W/oNaresh Malkud

¶29

Smt Boorgu Padma, Wo Sri Naveen Kumar

¶30

10.Smt Boorgu Harini, D/o Sri Naveen Kumar

¶31

1 1. Sri Boorgu Rajesh, Kumar, S/o Boorqu Narsimha Rao

¶32

12.Sri Boorgu Narsimha Rao, S/o late Sii B. Shankaraiah

¶33

Smt Krithika Rudrangi, W/o Sri Ramesh Rudrangi

¶34

(All.are.Fyo H.tlo.A-Z-OtAlZl1/A, Plot No.171 , Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -34.)

¶35

....Respon<lents/Respondents

¶36

'14. union of lndia, Ministry of Education (Formerly Human ResoLrrce development) Lal Bahadur Sastri Samiti, Maulana Azad Rodd, Bal Bhawan Man Sinoi RoaO Area, New Delhi, Delhi - 110001 , represented bv its Under Secretav. "

¶37

1. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance 3'o Floor, Jeevan Deep Br- ildino. Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Delhi - '1 10001, represented by its Under S,ecreiary.

¶38

...Proposed Resprrndent Nos.14 & 15

¶39

Petition under order 16-4 of writ Rules, praying that ir the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to lmplead the proposed respondent No.14 and 15 as party responcent No.14 and'15 in W.P. No.3502 of 2009.

¶40

NO: 2 OF 2021

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumr;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to submit the documents on record in W.P.No.3S02 of 2009.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. SUDARSHAN REDDY, SENICIR COUNSEL FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: THE ADVOCATE GEN|:RAL FOR GP FOR ASSIGNIMENT

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 13: SRI R. SUSHANTH Rt=DDy

¶46

counsel for the Respondent Nos.14 & 15: SRI NAMAVARAPU ?AJESHWAR RAo, ASSISTANT SOLI(:ITOR GENERAL

¶47

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶49

WRIT PETITION No. SSO2 of 2OO9 ORDER:

¶50

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.l in issuing G.O,Ms.No.1473 Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated lO. l2.2OOg, the present writ petition is liled by the petitioner_University of Hyderabad.

¶51

2 The lacts ol the case, in brief, are that in order to facilitate the establishment of the petitioner University, the State Government has allotted the land admeasuring Acs.2300_00 guntas situated at Kancha Gachibowli with a condition that the land should be used only for the purpose directly connected with education or technolos/ and if the land is used for any other purpose, without obtaining written permission from the Government, the land will revert to the State Government. That one Sattgari Lingamaiah llled O.S.No. 193 of l9g2 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner University and the erstwhile State of Andhra pradesh seeking possession of the land admeasuring Acs.25_16 guntas in survey Nos. 14, 16 to 23 situated at Kancha Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the said suit was decreed on 19.02.1994.. The First Appeal preferred by the petitioner University being A.S. No. 1034 ol j,994 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17 .11,,2OO1. During the pendency of the First Appeal, Lingamaiah died and his legal re presentative s uiz., Smt.S.Pushpamma and Smt.S.Chandrakala have prosecuted the First Appeal and after dismissal of A.S.No.1034 of 1994, they Iiled

¶52

E.P.No.1 I of 2OO2 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1,994. Pursuant to the orders passed in said E.p., the land

¶53

AAR. J W P No 3502^of2009

¶54

¶55

admeasuring^{Acs.25' i6guntas in surveyNos i4'le' to 23 was} delivered to^{Smt.S'Fushpammaand Smt S'Chandrakalaon} 3l.ol.2oo3underacoverofpanchanama.But,asth:aboveland had no^{approach road, after due deliberations'the petitioner} University^{conceded to the requestof the above inlividualsfor} providing alternate^{land mainly keeping in view the impending} security^{problemswhichmay arise due to the entry of strangers} into the University^{Campus' To that effect' the Ape>: Body of the} petitioner University^{i.e. Executive Councilon 24 '12'7lOO3resolved} to provide land^{admeasuring Acs' i2 17 guntassituated in between} IIIT and Sports^{Village in lieu of Acs'25'16 guntas and the said} proposal was sent^{for approvalto the GovernmenttL rough proper} channel i.e. the^{DistrictCollector, Ranga Reddy Dir;trict' who in} turnhasforwardedthesametotheChiefCommissionerofLand Administration, Andhra^{Pradesh, Hyderabad,vide letter dated} 08.03.2004. Thereafter, on^{11.04.2005,the District Collectorhas} forwarded the letter issued by^{the Chief Commiss.oner of Land} Administration raising certain^{queries, to the petitiorrer University,} to which the petitioner University submitted its^{repl'1 emphasizing} the need for according sanction for exchange of la:rd. However, without considering the same, vide Memo dated 2[t.12.2005, the proposal of the petitioner University was rejected c,n the ground that the Government has decided to allot the said land to Y.A.T. and C Department for construction of Sports Hostel/Parking etc. At that^juncture, W.P.No.27316 of 2005 was fi1ed belbre this Court by the iand owners seeking implementation of the proposal of exchange of land and the said writ petition was dis,posed by this Court on 30.12.2005 in view of the letter dated 20.12.2005 issued by respondent No.2 stating that the proposai of exchitnge of land is

¶56

AAR, J W.P.No.3502^{of 2009}

¶57

¶58

not feasible.^{Thereafter,the landowners have submittedanother} representation on^{30.O I .2006 expressingtheir inclination to accept} the land in two^{different locations.They also liled O'S'No'2639 of} 2005 on the file^{of the iIAdditional SeniorCivil Judge' Ranga} Reddy District,^{seeking mandatoryinjunction directing the} petitioner University^{to provide approach road to their land and for} permanent injunction^{restrainingthe petitioner Universityfrom} interfering or^{obstructingtheir right to use the approachroad' In} the said suit,^{the respondent Nos' 5 to 13 herein got impleaded} themselves^{as plaintiffs on the basis of the registered sale deeds} dated 05.01.2007^{executed by the land owners' While things stood} thus, the^{respondentNo 1 issued the impugnedG'O' directing the} District Collector^{to resume the land to an extent of Acs 25'31} guntas in survey^{No.37 from the petitioner University and handover} the same to^{the land owners, ignoring the fact that on an earlier} occasion,^{the land ownerswere acceptable for exchange of land} admeasuring^{Acs.12.17 guntas in lieu of Acs'25'16 guntas'Hence'} this writ Petition.

¶59

3 This Court ot^{2o.o2.2oO9 while admitting the writ petition} has granted^interim stay of ail^{proceedings pursuant to the} impugned^G.O.

¶60

1 Respondent^{No. ifiled a counter affidavit primarily statlng} that after^{careful examinationof the matter in consultationwith the} Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District' on the recommendations made by} the CCLA,^{after placingthe matter before the Council of Ministers} and after^{obtainingthe approvalof the Cabinet'' the Government} It is further has issued^{impugnedG'O' to resolve the dispute'} insisted^the stated^{thatthe..- Petitioner Universityhaving} -/

¶61

AAR, J W P.110.3502 of 2009

¶62

¶63

Government time and again to accord permission for exchange of land, cannol now question the power of the Government in issuing the G.O. as the Government had the absolute authcrity over the land in question. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the wrrt petition.

¶64

Respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit mainly contending that the petitioner University had agreed to exchange land admeasuring Acs.21-00 gunts in survey No.37 in lieu of Acs.25-31 guntas in survey No.37 and for which the respondents had a decree in their favour and the said fact was not stated in thr: writ petition affidavit. It is further stated that on an earlier occasion, land admeasuring Acs. 134-00 in survey No.25 rvas handed over by the petitioner University to Andhra pradesh Non-Gaz:tted Officers Association (APNGOs) for construction of residential irouses, on the directions of the Government, at which point of time no consent o[ the pedtioner University was obtained by the Governmerrt. When that is so, the petitioner University cannot urgue thtt the consent of the petitioner was not taken before issuing the imp,ugned G.O. lt is further stated that though the land admeasuring Acs.21-00 guntas in survey No.37 was proposed to be exctLanged by the petitioner University, the Government having found that the value of the land in survey Nos. 14, 76 to 23 being equal to the value of the land in survey No.37, had agreed to a1lot the equivalent extent of land. It is further stated that the petitioner Univer.sity being only an allottee of the land and themselves having proposed for exchange of land for an extent of Acs.21.OO gunras, now, cannot have any grievance with the issuance of the impugned G.O for Acs.25-31 guntas and no prejudice would be caused to it.

¶65

¶66

AAR J W. P.No.3502 of 2009

¶67

A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent Nos.6 to 13 on similar lines mainly contending that the petitioner University, being only an allottee, do have any iocus to question the arotment made by the State Government, the owner of the land.

¶68

A reply has been Iiied by the petitioner University stating that only in case of breach of ailotment conditions, the land will be reverted to the State Government. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no breach of conditions entitling the State Government to resume the land and therefore the aliegations that the petitioner Universit5r is not the owner of the land and it has no locus to challenge the impugned G.o. are without any regal basis and denied. It is further averred that though the impugned G"O. was issued only on the persuasion made by the petitioner University, but as against the proposal of the petitioner University for exchange of Acs.21 o0 gunts, the impugned G.o. has been issued for Acs.253 I guntas, that too without the consent of the petitioner University and the same cannot be countenanced.

¶69

This Court on 02.09.2009 while dealing with the vacate stay petitions, has modified the interim stay earlier granted by this Court to the following extent:

¶70

.The impugned G.O. is proposing to exchange only Ac.4.31 cents of land in excess of the proposals made by the University. Thus, it is made clear that the stay order granted is only to an extent of Ac.4.31 cents and the University is at liberty to hand over the land of Acs.21.00 as per the said G.O. In respect of the remaining land of Ac.4.31 cents in survey No.37, the University shall maintain srarLs guo as of today."

¶71

Heard Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of M7's.lndus Law Firm, for the petitioner,

¶72

AAR, J \A1.P.No.3502 of 2009

¶73

¶74

learned Government^{Pleader forAssignmentandlearned} GovernmentPleaderforRevenueforrespondentNoslto4'Sri Vivek Jain, learned^{counsel forrespondent No'5 and Sri} R.sushanth Reddy,^{learned counsel for responde;rtNos'6to 13'} Perused the record.

¶75

Considering the^{respective pleadings of the parties, it is to be} noted that even though^{the present writ petition js filed assailing} the G.O.Ms.No.1473 Revenue^{(ASN.V) DepzLrtment,dated} ).O.12.2OO8, according^{permissionby the Govt,rnment to the} District Collector for resumption of land to^{an ext(lnt of Acs.25.31} guntas in Sy. No. 37, Gopanpally Village fronL the petitioner University and to handover the same to the unoffic ial respondents, the owners of Ac.25.16 gts., patta land in Sy. Nos. 14 ancl 16 to 23 of Kancha Gachibowli Vi11age, Serilingampally Manrlal, on exchange basis as the patta land was already occupied by the petitioner University. After the interim stay granted by this Court on 2O.O2.2OO9 in W.P.M.P. No. 4549 of 2009, subseqrLently, by orders dated 02.O9.2009 in W.V.M.p. Nos. 892 & i.211 of t2OO9, this Court has modified the said interim order confining the stay only to the extent of Acs.4.31 guntas of land, on the ground that the petitioner Universi.ty had in principle agreed for exchange of land to an extent of Acs.21.00 guntas in favour of unofficial respondents. Thereafter, a Registered Exchange Deed has also been execut.ed between the unofficial respondents and the Government vide Registered Exchange Deed bearing document No. 1601 ol 2074, dated 14.04 .2014. As it is stated, across the Bar, tha t the exchange deeds are executed, that the possession of Acs.21.O0 gts., is already handed over to the unofficial respondents, and constructions have

¶76

AAR. J W. P.No.3502 of 2009

¶77

¶78

taken place on the said parcel of land, the present lis is confined only in respect of land to an extent of Acs.4.3l guntas.

¶79

In order to appreciate the case in a better perspective, a few facts, which are necessary to adjudicate the matter, needs to be reiterated. Admittedly, the petitioner University has^{lost the Civil} Suit filed by deceased S. Lingamaiah vide O.S.^{No. 609} of^{1979 (re'} numbered as O.S. No. 183 ol 1992<sup>on the lile of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District^{for possession,pastand futureprofits,} and the said suit was decreed^{vide judgmentand decreedated} lg.O2.lgg4. The decree and^{judgmenthas also been conlirmedby} this Court while dismissing the^{First Appeal preferred by the} petitioner University vide A.S. No. 1054 of^{1994, dated i7.11.2001'} Thereafter, E.P. No. ll of^{2OO2{iied by the unofficialrespondents} being the sole surviving^{legal heir of S. Lingamaiah (died on} 03.06.1993) was allowed^{executing the decree.Subsequently, when} the petitioner University^{tried to obstruct the access of the} unofficial respondents, O.S.^{No. 2639 of 2006 on the file of} Il Additional Senior^{CivilJudge,Ranga ReddyDistrictcame to be} filed by the unofficial^{respondents seeking mandatory injunction} against the^{petitioner University apart from a writ petition' it is} stated, across the Bar, that^{the suit is still pending adjudication'} Pending the above suit, the^{petitioner Universityhad initially} proposed for exchange of^{land to an extent of Acs'12-17guntas,} situated in between^{IIIT and Sports Village, in lieuof} Acs.25.16^guntas, and^{had also written a letter to the Government} to accord necessary^{permission in this regard,in the year2003'} But the Government,^{on the ground that the land to an extent of} Acs.12.17 guntas,^{proposed by the petitioner Universityto be}

¶80

¶81

AAR. J W P No.3502 of 2009

¶82

exchanged, is required to be allotted to y.A.T. and C D(:partment for construction of Sports Hostel/parking lot etc., and also on the ground that the value of the land sought to be exchanged is more than the Acs.25.31 guntas, vide Memo No 4S2S3lAsn.V(l)/ 20OS_1, dated 20. I2.2OOS has rejected the said proposal. While rejecting the said proposal, the Government, informed the petitioner University to acquire the private land belonging to the unofficial respondents required by them in sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23 0r Kancha Gachibowli Village, invoking the proceedinlls under the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, based on the proposal sent by the University the impugned G.O. has been iss;ued by the Government allotting equal extent of land admeasuring Acs.25-31 guntas in Sy. No. 37 in favour of the unofficial restondents, for which extent they arready have a decree in their favour. Now, the issue as to whether the petitioner University can contend that without their consent or No Objection Certificate, the Government could not have issued the impugned G.O. alotting Acs.2S_31 guntas in survey No.37 to the unofficial respondents in lieu of the land admeasuring Acs.2.5- 16 guntas in survey Nos.14, 16 to 23 has to be gone into.

¶83

Admittedly, way back in the year 1975 itsr:lf, the then Government of Andhra pradesh had allotted vast ext(:nt of land to an extent ofAcs.2300-00 guntas in Kancha Gacchi Bowli in favour of petitioner Universitlr vide D.O. No. 362a /Cl 174_II, d,ated 21.2.1975 with a condition that "the allotment of thz land to the Uniuersitg utill be subject to the cond.ition that the la,td. should, be used for the purposes allotted.. The tand u_till reuert to the State Gouemment, if it is used for other purposes not directlg connected

¶84

¶85

AAR, J W P No.3502 of 2009

¶86

with education or teclvtologA uithout the^{prioru)rttten permlssion of} the State Gouernmenf . This letter came to be issued pursuant to a Cabinet decision and policy of the then Central Government^to establish a Central University in the State Capital.^{Though going} by the language used in the letter^{vide D.O. No. 3624} lCll74-ll, daled, 27.2.1975, the allotment^{of the said extentof land can only} be said to be conditional^{one and not absolute but still the fact} remains that the University^{of Hyderabad was established by an Act} of the Parliament and the^{allotted land remained in physical} possession and enjoyment ol the^{University right from 1975' The} University, after losing^{the suit filed by the predecessor-in-titleof} the unofficial respondents,^{has initiaily resolved to a1lot an extent of} Acs.12-17 guntas of land^{in Sy. No. 25 in favour of unofficial} respondents in lieu^{of Acs. 25-16 guntasin Sy. Nos'14 and 16 to} 23. The^{petitionerUniversity,in furtheranceof the same,vide} letter, dated 27.O2.2006,^{sought permissionfrom the Government} for exchanging the said^{lands. But the Governmenthad rejected} the same on the^{groundthat the land proposed to be exchanged,is} required for constructing^{Sports Complex, including the Sports} Village, and directed the^{District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to} identifyanalternateland.Thereafter,theUniversityvideletter, dated 28.02.2006^{has decided to alienate an extent of Acs'21-00} guntas of land in Sy' No. 37^{of GopannapallyViltage in lieu of} Acs.25-16 guntas of^{land, situated in Sy' Nos'14 and 16 to 23 of} Kancha Gachibouli^{Village. As a result, the DistrictCollector'} while forwarding^{the proposal of the University, has reportedthat} the basic value^{of land in sy. No. 37 at Gopannapally Villageand} the land in^{Sy. Nos. 14 and 76 to 23 of Kancha Gachiboulias} Rs.25.00 lakhs^{per acre and prevailing market value of both the}

¶87

¶88

AAR, J W.P No.3502 of 2009

¶89

lands as Rs.3.50 crores per acre. Based on the :eport of the District collector and taking into consideration that both the basic value and the market value of both the lands, sought to be exchanged, was equal, the Government has taken a de:ision to alot an extent ofAcs. 25-31 guntas of land in Sy. No. 37, (iopannapally Village and accordingly necessary orders were passeo in favour of the unofficial respondents.

¶90

In the subsequent suit filed by the unofficial resirondents vide O.S. No. 2639 ol 2006, in the written statemenr, the petitioner University, while reiterating the contents of the lettr:r, dated 21.02.1975 issued by the Depury Secretary to Government, Education Department, at para 7, pleaded as under:_

¶91

'7. Ihus, it is euident from the aboue chrontlogy of euents, the defendant Uniuersitg in its rtght eamest ts stiuirtg for^proaning an alternate tand. to the plaintiffs. But the efforls of dekndant tJniuersitg d.id not fructi,fy for the reqsons stated aboue. In fact the exchange of the land ruould. be bena,ficial to the dekndant Uniuersttg. But the dekndant Uniuersitg, being in permissive possession, cannot, on its oLUn accord., grant the exchange uitltout the permission from Gouernment of t.p. The Gouemment of A,p.n has d.ectined urith the exchange proposal of Ac.25.16 Cts to Ac.12.12 Gts sifi.nted betlaeen )IIT and Spo/ts Sradfum. The grieuance of the plaintiffs hcs to be u.torked out Loith Gouernment of A.p. for exchange of ltnd. and defendant tlntuersitA has mad_e att its efforts.,

¶92

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, it is stated as under:-

¶93

" . . . Another ertent of land ad.measuing 1 34 acres ir Sg. .{o. 25 has been handed ouer bA the petitioner UniuersitA to Andhra Pradesh Non-Gozetted Olfi.cers .Assoaafion (ApNOOS) for construction of residential houses on the directions issued bg the gouemment. ......an extent of 400 acres in Sg. /vo. 25 wcs taken ouer by the gouemment from the uniuersitg and. allotted t to the Intemational Management Group (IMG) of USA for the pu.pose of establishing intemattonal sports authority. Hou.teuer for allotment of land to IMG, consent ruas taken from the untuersitg and in

¶94

AAR, J W.P.No.3502 of 2009

¶95

¶96

exchange for the satd tand, land admeasuring 397.16 guntas in surueA No. 36 and 37 of Gopanpalti Village, Seritingampallg MandaL Ranga Reddy distict utas allotted to the petitioner uniuersity under proceedings beaing No. LCU 5705/ 68/ 2008, dated 17.1.2004."

¶97

Further, the petitioner University had addressed a letter dated 27.02.2006 to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh while reiterating the problem being faced with regard to the exchange of 4O0 acres of land to IMG, had also made a mention with regard to the present issue of exchange of land between the petitioner University and the unofficial respondents. The relevant portion of the letter, reads as under:-

¶98

"...It is requested; alternatiuely, the Gouernment may kindlg penntt the Uniuersitg to exchange an exchange of land of 21 acres tn Surueg No. 37 of GopanpallA Village in lieu of 25 Acres 16 Guntas situated in Surueg Nos. 14, 16 to 23 of^{Kancha Oachibowli} Village."

¶99

On the very next date i.e., on 28.02.2006, the University had addressed another letter to the Special Chief Secretary to^the Government, Revenue Department, reiterating its^{proposal for the} exchange of similar piece of land to an extent of Acs. 21.0O^guntas in Sy. No. 37. The relevant portion of the ietter, reads thus:-

¶100

'...Therefore, it is^proposed to^exchange a^{simitar pieceof} land to the extreme corner of teamed belonging to Uniuersttg^{to an} extent of 21 Acres in Suruey No. 37 of Gopanpatty^Vitlage in^tteu of 25.16 acres belonging to Late Shri Lingamaiah subject to^the permission of Gouemment of Andhra Pradesb"

¶101

Another important aspect that needs to be noted is^that Professor P.C. Sarangi, who has deposed on^{behaif of University in} the present writ petition, was also examined^{as D.W'2 in O.S. No.} 2639 of 2006. ln his chief-affudavit, at^{para 7, he had statedas} under:^-

¶102

¶103

AAR J W P \0.3502 of 2OO9

¶104

"7. Thus euidentlA, the defendant LJniuersitg tn is ight eamest ts stiving for proanring on qltemate lotrd to the pLaintiffs. But the efforts of deknd.ant llniuersitll Cid not fructifg for the reasons state.i aboue. In fact the exchange oJ. the land would be beneficiat to the defendant fJniuerslty. But the defendant |JntuersitA, being in pertnissiue posr;ession, cannoL on its otxn accord, grant the exchange u)ithout the pennission from Gouemment of A.p. The Couemment of A.p. lns declined with the exchange proposal of Ac.2S.j(, Gts to Ac.12.17 Gts situated. betueen IIIT and Sports Stadiu n. The grieL'ance of the ptaintilfs has to be u.torked ottt uith Gouemment oJ A.p. for exchange of lcLnd rLnd de.tendant Unttersitg has mad.e c:Ll its elforts.,

¶105

But, the very same person, in his reply aflidavit filed in the present writ petition, has taken a contra stand stating as under. The relevant portion at para No. 2, reads thus:-

¶106

"...With regard to the allegation that the pt?titloner Uniuersitg ho's only permissiue possesslon ouer the lartd and not tlle absolute aulhoitll ouer the Gouemment tat d tt is respectfullg submitted that the said contention is bo farfetched and preposterous, to sag the least. petittoner Uniuersitg was allotted an ertent oJ 2,300 Acres for the purPose of its academtc actiuities, which is subject to the condition that the land should be used. for the said purpose. In the euent of said land being put to use for ang other purpose, then only the land would reuett to the Is Respondent Thus the Petitioner uniuersitg is tLE ou)ner of the aboue land, ttdugh for a limited purpose. IJnless tlle petitioner uniuersitA consenrs, the l Respond.ent cannot acE.tire the said land unilaterally, other than bg due process of law.,

¶107

The above correspondence and the stand taken by the University in different forums shows that the Univers,ity was well conscious of its right, obtigation and limitation in exercising power over the land allotted by the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government does not have any say i:r the entire matte r As seen from the record, the Government has been trying to allot portions of land to some other inslitutions tr exchange some other land in lieu ol the land originally allc,tted to the

¶108

AAR, J W.P. No.3502 of 2009

¶109

¶110

University from time to time, the University has been resisting the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner University that while exchanging the lands for an extent of Ac.400.00 gts., by the Government to IMG, the Government has sought permission from the Unive rsity and only after obtaining permission has exchanged the land and from the said exchange it has to be concluded that the University was the absolute^{owner and} without their permission, the Government did^{not have any powers} to deal with the land is not right, the said^{exchangeis to be} understood in the context of that^{case only. By said objection and} subsequent acquiesce it cannot^{be said that the Universiry had the} absolute right over the^{land and that the Government did not have} any say in the matter.^{As seen from the record,it is only on the} basis of mutual undersLanding^{and memorandumdrawn between} the Government and^{the University that the exchangetook place} and the same cannot^{become the sole basis for the Universityto} contend that it is the^{absolute owner of the lands'The University} cannot blow hot^{and cold at the same time. The Universiry has} repeatedly sought^{permissionfrom the Government for exchanging} thelandinlieu.ofthelandoftheunofficialrespondentsfromtime to time. Before^{the impugned G'O altottingAcs'25 31 guntas of} land was issued, the^{Universityhas sent a proposaland sought} permission from^{the Government for exchangingAcs'12 17 guntas} and thereafter^{for exchanging Acs 21 0O guntas' The Government} while taking^{conscious decision to exchange Acs'25'31 guntashas} taken into^{considerationthat the lands which are sought to be} exchanged^{are of the same value and that they are at the corner of} the University^{and has allotted the same'Merely because the} consent or-no^{objection frorn the University was not obtained to} -:

¶111

AAR, J W P.hlo.3502 of 2009

¶112

¶113

allot the land of Ac. 25.31 guntas, it cannot be said that the Government was not having any power or that the same is an arbitrary exercise of powers by the Government. The University having lost the suit as well as the Fit.st Appeal, cannot restrict the claim of unofficial respondents to Acs.21..00 guntas nor they can take a stand that they will allot only Acs.21.00 gunlas of land in lieu of Acs.25.16 guntas for which the University has already suffered a decree in the civil court. Having sought pe:mission from the Government to exchange the land, the University is estopped from questioning the impugned G.O. Another point that is to be noted is that the Exchange Deed, dated 14.O4.2014, :xecuted after the impugned order was modified by this Court vide Order, dated O2.O9.2OO9, in respect of Acs.21.00 guntas of land is between the unofficial respondents and the Government, and not between the University arrd the nnofficial respondents.

¶114

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner University that in view of dismissal of the earrier writ petition filed by the unofficial respondents being W.p. No. 27316 of 2005, seeking implementation of the proposal of exchangr: of Acs.2S_16 guntas for ACs.12-17 guntas on 30.12.2005, the unofficial respondents have to work out their remedies only in the civil Court does not deserve any merit and has to be rejected. l.he earlier writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the croposal of the University was already rejected by the Government by the time of hearing of Writ Petition. Another point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show that the land lllotted to the University belongs to the University and that the state Government does not have any power for which proposition, the rr:arned counsel

=.---=-+

AAR, J W.P.No 3502 of 2OO9

¶119

has relied on is Section S(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974. section s(23) of the university of Hyderabad Act, r974 reads as under:-

¶120

"secdon S: powers of the ttnlversitg.

¶121

The Uniuersity shalt haue the follotLing powers, namelA:_ (l)to (221 xxx (omitted as not necessary) {23)^to receiue d.onations and to acquire, hold., manage and dispose of anA propertg, mouable or immmouable, tncluding trust and endowment properties for the purposes of the Uniuersitg;"

¶122

Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, t974 simply gives powers to the University to purchase, sell or do whatever they want in respect of the land which they are holding. There is absolutely no quarrel with the said proposition or the power of the University if any immovable property is purchased by the University is sought to be given away, exchanged pr alotted to some other person or institution. But here is a case where the land has been allotted to the Universit5r vide letter D.O.No.3264l Ct lT4_II, d,ated 2t.02.7975 with some conditions. The question as to whether they will have absolute right under the D.O. Letter, dated 21.02.1975 has to be gone into in appropriate case. With a1i due respect to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the facts in this Writ petition are very peculiar and intrinsic to this case on1y, the University having sulfered a decree and the same having become linai, the reliance on Section 5 of the Act cannot be of much help. Therefore, the above argument is rejected. Once the University has sent another proposal, the same was accepted by the Government though not to the liking of the University and the impugned G.O. was issued. It is pertinent to note that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner University, as there is no decrease in the extent of land originally

¶123

AAR, J W.P.l'io.3502^{of 2009}

¶124

¶125

allotted to^{the University by virtue of the impugned {i'O'As the} University has^{got an equal extent of land from t:re unofficial} respondents for^{which they are alreadyhaving a decree' the} University cannot^{have any grievancewith regardto the issuance of} the impugned G.O.^{As cu11edout from the vario:s instances} enumerated. above,^{the University having submitteda proposalto} the Government for^{exchanging the land and seeking their} permission to exchange^{the samecannot nowcontendthat the} Government does not^{have any say or authority to issue the} impugned G.O.^{The Government, in its wisdom,he s allottedan} extent of Ac. 25-31^{guntasof land in exchangefor the landof Ac'} 25-16 guntas belonging^{to the unofficial respondentsduly taking} into consideration the^{market value of both the lands and also that} the same is at the corner^{of the Universityand no prtiudice willbe} caused to the University, if^{the land of Ac.25-ll1. guntasis} exchanged in lieu ofAc. 25-16^{guntas in Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23.}

¶126

For the forgoing discussions and the reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the challenge to the impugned G.O. issued by the Government exchanging the subject land to the unofficial respondents in lieu of the land of Acs.25. i6 guntas is without any merits. The University having suffered the decree, which was also confirmed in the first appeal by this Court, now cannct turn around and contend that the claim of the unofficial rer;pondents be confined to only to an extent of Acs.21-00 gunts and not for Acs.25.31 guntas. Therefore, this Court does not fintl any merit in the present writ petition.

¶127

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Ho'",rever, in view of the peculiar facts ol the present case, the present order came to

¶128

wp No 3502 #;o;'

¶129

be passed and this order cannot be cited as a precedent. ?he Government should avojd allotting any parcels of land which have already been allotted to the University pursuant to the Cabinet decision and in furtherance of a policy decision, and to the best extent possible, safeguard the entire land which was originally allotted to the University. The Government should see that no land of the University is allowed to be encroached, allotted or anlnvay diminished and see that the original extent of land allotted to the University is preserved.

¶130

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶131

SD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE GOPY// \ SECTION O'FFICER

¶132