A. Abhishek Reddy, J.:— Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 1473 Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated 10.12.2008, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-University of Hyderabad.
2. The facts of 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 technology 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 filed O.S. No. 193 of 1982 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 of 1994 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17.11.2001. During the pendency of the First Appeal, Lingamaiah died and his legal representatives viz., Smt. S. Pushpamma and Smt. S. Chandrakala have prosecuted the First Appeal and after dismissal of A.S. No. 1034 of 1994, they filed E.P. No. 11 of 2002 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1994. Pursuant to the orders passed in said E.P., the land admeasuring Acs.25.16 guntas in survey Nos. 14, 16 to 23 was delivered to Smt. S. Pushpamma and Smt. S. Chandrakala on 31.01.2003 under a cover of panchanama. But, as the above land had no approach road, after due deliberations, the petitioner University conceded to the request of the above individuals for providing alternate land mainly keeping in view the impending security problems which may arise due to the entry of strangers into the University Campus. To that effect, the Apex Body of the petitioner University i.e. Executive Council on 24.12.2003 resolved to provide land admeasuring Acs.12.17 guntas situated in between IIIT and Sports Village in lieu of Acs.25.16 guntas and the said proposal was sent for approval to the Government through proper channel i.e. the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, who in turn has forwarded the same to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 08.03.2004. Thereafter, on 11.04.2005, the District Collector has forwarded the letter issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration raising certain queries, to the petitioner University, to which the petitioner University submitted its reply emphasizing the need for according sanction for exchange of land. However, without considering the same, vide Memo dated 20.12.2005, the proposal of the petitioner University was rejected on 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 filed before this Court by the land owners seeking implementation of the proposal of exchange of land and the said writ petition was disposed by this Court on 30.12.2005 in view of the letter dated 20.12.2005 issued by respondent No. 2 stating that the proposal of exchange of land is not feasible. Thereafter, the land owners have submitted another representation on 30.01.2006 expressing their inclination to accept the land in two different locations. They also filed O.S. No. 2639 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking mandatory injunction directing the petitioner University to provide approach road to their land and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner University from interfering or obstructing their right to use the approach road. 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 respondent No. 1 issued the impugned G.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 owners were acceptable for exchange of land admeasuring Acs.12.17 guntas in lieu of Acs.25.16 guntas. Hence, this writ petition.
3. This Court on 20.02.2009 while admitting the writ petition has granted interim stay of all proceedings pursuant to the impugned G.O.
4. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter affidavit primarily stating that after careful examination of the matter in consultation with the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on the recommendations made by the CCLA, after placing the matter before the Council of Ministers and after obtaining the approval of the Cabinet, the Government has issued impugned G.O. to resolve the dispute. It is further stated that the petitioner University having insisted the Government time and again to accord permission for exchange of land, cannot now question the power of the Government in issuing the G.O. as the Government had the absolute authority over the land in question. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. 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 the writ petition affidavit. It is further stated that on an earlier occasion, land admeasuring Acs.134-00 in survey No. 25 was handed over by the petitioner University to Andhra Pradesh Non-Gazetted Officers Association (APNGOs) for construction of residential houses, on the directions of the Government, at which point of time no consent of the petitioner University was obtained by the Government. When that is so, the petitioner University cannot urgue that the consent of the petitioner was not taken before issuing the impugned G.O. It is further stated that though the land admeasuring Acs.21-00 guntas in survey No. 37 was proposed to be exchanged by the petitioner University, the Government having found that the value of the land in survey Nos. 14, 16 to 23 being equal to the value of the land in survey No. 37, had agreed to allot the equivalent extent of land. It is further stated that the petitioner University being only an allottee of the land and themselves having proposed for exchange of land for an extent of Acs.21.00 guntas, 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.
6. 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 locus to question the allotment made by the State Government, the owner of the land.
7. A reply has been filed by the petitioner University stating that only in case of breach of allotment 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 allegations that the petitioner University is not the owner of the land and it has no locus to challenge the impugned G.O. are without any legal 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.21.00 gunts, the impugned G.O. has been issued for Acs.25-31 guntas, that too without the consent of the petitioner University and the same cannot be countenanced.
8. 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:
“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 status quo as of today.”
9. Heard Sri. A. Sudarshan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of M/s. Indus Law Firm, for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Assignment and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Sri. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 13. Perused the record.
10. Considering the respective pleadings of the parties, it is to be noted that even though the present writ petition is filed assailing the G.O.Ms. No. 1473 Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated 10.12.2008, according permission by the Government to the District Collector for resumption of land to an extent of Acs.25.31 guntas in Sy. No. 37, Gopanpally Village from the petitioner University and to handover the same to the unofficial respondents, the owners of Ac.25.16 gts., patta land in Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, on exchange basis as the patta land was already occupied by the petitioner University. After the interim stay granted by this Court on 20.02.2009 in W.P.M.P. No. 4549 of 2009, subsequently, by orders dated 02.09.2009 in W.V.M.P. Nos. 892 & 1211 of 2009, 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 University 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 executed between the unofficial respondents and the Government vide Registered Exchange Deed bearing document No. 1601 of 2014, dated 14.04.2014. As it is stated, across the Bar, that the exchange deeds are executed, that the possession of Acs.21.00 gts., is already handed over to the unofficial respondents, and constructions have taken place on the said parcel of land, the present lis is confined only in respect of land to an extent of Acs.4.31 guntas.
11. 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 (renumbered as O.S. No. 183 of 1992) on the file of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for possession, past and future profits, and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1994. The decree and judgment has also been confirmed by this Court while dismissing the First Appeal preferred by the petitioner University vide A.S. No. 1054 of 1994, dated 17.11.2001. Thereafter, E.P. No. 11 of 2002 filed by the unofficial respondents 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 II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District came 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 University had initially proposed for exchange of land to an extent of Acs.12-17 guntas, situated in between IIIT and Sports Village, in lieu of Acs.25.16 guntas, and had also written a letter to the Government to accord necessary permission in this regard, in the year 2003. But the Government, on the ground that the land to an extent of Acs.12.17 guntas, proposed by the petitioner University to be exchanged, is required to be allotted to Y.A.T. and C Department 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. 45253/Asn.V(I)/2005-I, dated 20.12.2005 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 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, invoking the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, based on the proposal sent by the University the impugned G.O. has been issued by the Government allotting equal extent of land admeasuring Acs.25-31 guntas in Sy. No. 37 in favour of the unofficial respondents, for which extent they already 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. allotting Acs.25-31 guntas in survey No. 37 to the unofficial respondents in lieu of the land admeasuring Acs.25-16 guntas in survey Nos. 14, 16 to 23 has to be gone into.
12. Admittedly, way back in the year 1975 itself, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had allotted vast extent of land to an extent of Acs.2300-00 guntas in Kancha Gacchi Bowli in favour of petitioner University vide D.O. No. 3624/C1/74-II, dated 21.2.1975 with a condition that “the allotment of the land to the University will be subject to the condition that the land should be used for the purposes allotted. The land will revert to the State Government, if it is used for other purposes not directly connected with education or technology without the prior written permission of the State Government”. 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/C1/74-II, dated 21.2.1975, the allotment of the said extent of 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 of the University right from 1975. The University, after losing the suit filed by the predecessor-in-title of the unofficial respondents, has initially resolved to allot an extent of Acs.12-17 guntas of land in Sy. No. 25 in favour of unofficial respondents in lieu of Acs. 25-16 guntas in Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23. The petitioner University, in furtherance of the same, vide letter, dated 27.02.2006, sought permission from the Government for exchanging the said lands. But the Government had rejected the same on the ground that 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 identify an alternate land. Thereafter, the University vide letter, dated 28.02.2006 has decided to alienate an extent of Acs.21-00 guntas of land in Sy. No. 37 of Gopannapally Village 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 District Collector, while forwarding the proposal of the University, has reported that the basic value of land in Sy. No. 37 at Gopannapally Village and the land in Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23 of Kancha Gachibouli as Rs. 25.00 lakhs per acre and prevailing market value of both the lands as Rs. 3.50 crores per acre. Based on the report 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 decision to allot an extent of Acs. 25-31 guntas of land in Sy. No. 37, Gopannapally Village and accordingly necessary orders were passed in favour of the unofficial respondents.
13. In the subsequent suit filed by the unofficial respondents vide O.S. No. 2639 of 2006, in the written statement, the petitioner University, while reiterating the contents of the letter, dated 21.02.1975 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Education Department, at para 7, pleaded as under:—
“7. Thus, it is evident from the above chronology of events, the defendant University in its right earnest is striving for procuring an alternate land to the plaintiffs. But the efforts of defendant University did not fructify for the reasons stated above. In fact the exchange of the land would be beneficial to the defendant University. But the defendant University, being in permissive possession, cannot, on its own accord, grant the exchange without the permission from Government of A.P. The Government of A.P.N. has declined with the exchange proposal of Ac.25.16 Gts to Ac.12.17 Gts situated between IIIT and Sports Stadium. The grievance of the plaintiffs has to be worked out with Government of A.P. for exchange of land and defendant University has made all its efforts.”
14. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, it is stated as under:—
“…Another extent of land admeasuring 134 acres in Sy. No. 25 has been handed over by the petitioner University to Andhra Pradesh Non-Gazetted Officers Association (APNGOS) for construction of residential houses on the directions issued by the government. ……an extent of 400 acres in Sy. No. 25 was taken over by the government from the university and allotted it to the International Management Group (IMG) of USA for the purpose of establishing international sports authority. However for allotment of land to IMG, consent was taken from the university and in exchange for the said land, land admeasuring 397.16 guntas in survey No. 36 and 37 of Gopanpalli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district was allotted to the petitioner university under proceedings bearing No. LCI/5705/68/2008, dated 17.1.2004.”
15. 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 400 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:—
“…It is requested; alternatively, the Government may kindly permit the University to exchange an exchange of land of 21 acres in Survey No. 37 of Gopanpally Village in lieu of 25 Acres 16 Guntas situated in Survey Nos. 14, 16 to 23 of Kancha Gachibowli Village.”
16. 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. 21.00 guntas in Sy. No. 37. The relevant portion of the letter, reads thus:—
“…Therefore, it is proposed to exchange a similar piece of land to the extreme corner of learned belonging to University to an extent of 21 Acres in Survey No. 37 of Gopanpally Village in lieu of 25.16 acres belonging to Late Shri Lingamaiah subject to the permission of Government of Andhra Pradesh.”
17. Another important aspect that needs to be noted is that Professor P.C. Sarangi, who has deposed on behalf of University in the present writ petition, was also examined as D.W.2 in O.S. No. 2639 of 2006. In his chief-affidavit, at para 7, he had stated as under:—
“7. Thus evidently, the defendant University in its right earnest is striving for procuring an alternate land to the plaintiffs. But the efforts of defendant University did not fructify for the reasons stated above. In fact the exchange of the land would be beneficial to the defendant University. But the defendant University, being in permissive possession, cannot, on its own accord, grant the exchange without the permission from Government of A.P. The Government of A.P. has declined with the exchange proposal of Ac.25.16 Gts to Ac.12.17 Gts situated between IIIT and Sports Stadium. The grievance of the plaintiffs has to be worked out with Government of A.P. for exchange of land and defendant University has made all its efforts.”
18. But, the very same person, in his reply affidavit filed in the present writ petition, has taken a contra stand stating as under. The relevant portion at para No. 2, reads thus:—
“…With regard to the allegation that the Petitioner University has only permissive possession over the land and not the absolute authority over the Government land it is respectfully submitted that the said contention is too farfetched and preposterous, to say the least. Petitioner University was allotted an extent of 2,300 Acres for the purpose of its academic activities, which is subject to the condition that the land should be used for the said purpose. In the event of said land being put to use for any other purpose, then only the land would revert to the 1st Respondent. Thus the Petitioner University is the owner of the above land, though for a limited purpose. Unless the Petitioner University consents, the 1st Respondent cannot acquire the said land unilaterally, other than by due process of law.”
19. The above correspondence and the stand taken by the University in different forums shows that the University was well conscious of its right, obligation 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 in the entire matter. As seen from the record, the Government has been trying to allot portions of land to some other institutions or exchange some other land in lieu of the land originally allotted to the 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 University 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 exchange is to be understood in the context of that case only. By said objection and subsequent acquiesce it cannot be said that the University 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 understanding and memorandum drawn between the Government and the University that the exchange took place and the same cannot become the sole basis for the University to contend that it is the absolute owner of the lands. The University cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. The University has repeatedly sought permission from the Government for exchanging the land in lieu of the land of the unofficial respondents from time to time. Before the impugned G.O. allotting Acs.25.31 guntas of land was issued, the University has sent a proposal and sought permission from the Government for exchanging Acs.12.17 guntas and thereafter for exchanging Acs.21.00 guntas. The Government while taking conscious decision to exchange Acs.25.31 guntas has taken into consideration that 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 from the University was not obtained to 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 First 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 guntas of land in lieu of Acs.25.16 guntas for which the University has already suffered a decree in the civil court. Having sought permission 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 14.04.2014, executed after the impugned order was modified by this Court vide Order, dated 02.09.2009, in respect of Acs.21.00 guntas of land is between the unofficial respondents and the Government, and not between the University and the unofficial respondents.
20. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner University that in view of dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the unofficial respondents being W.P. No. 27316 of 2005, seeking implementation of the proposal of exchange of Acs.25-16 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. The earlier writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the proposal 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 allotted to the University belongs to the University and that the State Government does not have any power for which proposition, the learned counsel has relied on is Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974. Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 reads as under:—
“Section 5 : Powers of the University.
The University shall have the following powers, namely:—-
(1) to (22) xxx (omitted as not necessary)
(23) to receive donations and to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of any property, movable or immmovable, including trust and endowment properties for the purposes of the University;”
21. Section 5(23) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 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 or allotted to some other person or institution. But here is a case where the land has been allotted to the University vide letter D.O. No. 3264/C1/74-II, dated 21.02.1975 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 all due respect to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the facts in this Writ Petition are very peculiar and intrinsic to this case only, the University having suffered a decree and the same having become final, 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 allotted to the University by virtue of the impugned G.O. As the University has got an equal extent of land from the unofficial respondents for which they are already having a decree, the University cannot have any grievance with regard to the issuance of the impugned G.O. As culled out from the various instances enumerated above, the University having submitted a proposal to the Government for exchanging the land and seeking their permission to exchange the same cannot now contend that the Government does not have any say or authority to issue the impugned G.O. The Government, 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 duly taking into consideration the market value of both the lands and also that the same is at the corner of the University and no prejudice will be caused to the University, if the land of Ac.25-31 guntas is exchanged in lieu of Ac. 25-16 guntas in Sy. Nos. 14 and 16 to 23.
22. 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.25.16 guntas is without any merits. The University having suffered the decree, which was also confirmed in the first appeal by this Court, now cannot turn around and contend that the claim of the unofficial respondents be confined to only to an extent of Acs.21-00 gunts and not for Acs.25.31 guntas. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in view 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 Government should avoid 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 anyway diminished and see that the original extent of land allotted to the University is preserved.
24. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.