IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR , CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.1179 of 2023

The Founder and Chairman

M/s. Sweekaar Rehabilitation

Institute for Handicapped, Secunderabad

At Putlampalli, Kadapa Mandal,

Represented by GPA Holder

Ch. Sridhar, S/o. Ch. VenkataSattaiah,

Aged about 36 years, R/o.S.No.104 GF

Santhosh Nilayam, Sri Sai Enclave,

Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

...Appellant

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,

Amaravati – 522 237, Andhra Pradesh and three others.

…Respondents

Mr. K. V. Simhadri, Sr. Counsel for Ms. M. Manikya Veena, Counsel for the

appellant.

GP for Revenue, Counsel for the respondents.

Date : 17.05.2024

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR , CJ:

1. The present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has

been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 passed

in W.P.No.5175 of 2020.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

2

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the petitioner started an

Academy of Rehabilitation Sciences at Secunderabad in the year 1977

called Sweekaar. It is stated that this was a non-profit and non-commercial

voluntary organisation which was aimed at rendering services to the

mentally challenged, physically disabled, deaf, aged, drug addicts, widows

and destitute and was thus a Multi-speciality Rehabilitation Centre. The

petitioner claims that in the various programmes run by it, six thousand

seven hundred and twenty Rehabilitation Professionals were trained and

serving all over the country as also the abroad and catering to the

requirements of approximately 70.45 lakhs of people suffering from the

disabilities and the problems of addiction etc., most of which people belong

to the poorer sections of the society.

3. It is stated that the institute run by the petitioner is the first of its kind

in India and runs various training programmes viz. Diploma, Degree, PG

and Ph.D. courses, all of which are recognised by the State and the

Central Government as also the Universities and the Rehabilitation Council

of India (for short “RCI”).

4. It is stated that Sweekar is a certified ISO 9001 institute and has

received several national and international awards. Apart from this, it is

claimed that the Founder Chairman of Sweekar has received 56 national

and international awards out of which six are from the President of India.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

3

The Founder Chairman is stated to be a practicing Paediatrician,

Rehabilitation Specialist and Ph.D. in Psychology.

5. It is also stated that considering the contributions made in the field,

the then Chief Minister Dr.Y.S.R. Reddy, requested Sweekar to start a

campus in Kadapa District to serve the mentally challenged and disabled in

the Rayalaseema area. It is stated that pursuant to the aforementioned

request, a parcel of land measuring ten acres was granted at a nominal

cost of Rupees Fifty Thousand per acre, subject to the terms and

conditions as laid down under Order 24 of Board of Revenue Standing

Orders (for short “B.S.O.”) vide G.O.Ms.No.1405, Revenue (ASN.IV)

Department, dated 03.11.2007. The land was allotted in the name of the

petitioner society i.e., Founder and Chairman, Upkaar and Sweekaar,

Secunderabad. Later, the nomenclature is stated to have been changed to

„Sweekar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped‟ vide G.O.Ms.No.432,

Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, dated 05.03.2009.

6. It is further stated that an area of approximately ten thousand square

feet has been constructed over the land in question while the boundary has

been well marked with cement poles and barbed wires. Two bore wells are

stated to have been dug and provisions have been made for security, staff

and others.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

4

7. It is further stated that the petitioner institute was initially affiliated to

Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati and later to Yogi Vemana University

at Kadapa. Permission is also stated to have been obtained from the RCI

for recognition of the courses such as Bachelor and Diploma in Audiology,

Speech and Language Pathology (BASLP), which is a four year course as

also Diploma in Hearing Language and Speech, which is a two year course

from 2005 onwards. It is stated that the academy has produced qualified

professionals whose credentials have been approved not only by the

University but also by the RCI.

8. The institute being run by the petitioner is stated to have been

functioning for the past fourteen years and while being so, notice dated

27.11.2019, came to be received by the petitioner from the District

Collector, YSR District, Kadapa stating that the land alienated to the

institute had not fully been utilized except to a small extent and thus,

conditions of alienation under B.S.O.24 had been violated. The petitioner

was accordingly asked to show cause as to why the land measuring nine

acres sixty five cents, which remain unutilized by the grantee/petitioner be

not resumed and called for an explanation within fifteen days.

9. Response dated 30.12.2019, was submitted by the petitioner

wherein the stand taken was that the dream of the organisation could not

be accomplished by keeping thirty five cents out of the ten acres and

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

5

therefore, it was suggested that the entire ten acres with buildings and

furniture be surrendered. Financial support to the extent of seven crore

was also sought by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner

institute was a charitable organisation which had not received any help

from the Government or the corporate sector and that there was a financial

crisis.

Finally, an order came to be passed by the District Collector, dated

16.02.2020, to the extent that land measuring nine acres which remained

unutilized by the petitioner be resumed. The Tahsildar, Kadapa was

instructed to take over the possession of the aforementioned land from the

Chairman of the Sweekaar Rehabilitation Institute.

10. The order of resumption came to be challenged before the learned

single Judge in W.P.No.5175 of 2020, who by virtue of judgment and order

dated 15.09.2023, dismissed the same by holding that the purpose for

which the land had been allotted had not been achieved and that the

petitioner was not imparting education in the said institute and returned a

finding that the petitioner institute has discontinued admission from the

academic year 2016-17 due to financial problems. Reference in this regard

was made to a letter dated 26.09.2018, addressed by the institute to the

Registrar, Yogi Vemana University at Kadapa to issue the NOC for

withdrawal of the corpus fund. Hence, the present letters patent appeal.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

6

11. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by

the learned single Judge that the institute was not imparting any education

from the said premises was without any basis. With reference to the

additional affidavit filed by the appellant, our attention was sought to

documents which include the consolidated statement of attendance of

various candidates, who had attended the academy and undergone

courses between 2022 and 2024.

12. Not only this, documents were placed on record reflecting

appointment of external examiners for practical examination scheduled to

be held on 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 for the examination centre which

was identified as „Sweekar Academy of Rehabilitation Sciences at

Kadapa‟. It was thus urged that on facts, the learned single Judge was not

justified in law, in upholding the order impugned passed by the Collector.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, sought to

reiterate their stand as was taken before the learned single Judge.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

15. Admittedly, while the grant made in favour of the institute was to an

extent of ten acres, what was sought to be resumed was only to an extent

of nine acres, leaving with the petitioner institute land measuring one acre.

The reason for resumption of nine acres was that the same had not been

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

7

utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted to the petitioner. This would

necessarily imply that the petitioner was continuing to conduct its activities

from the area which was left out, which was outside the purview of the

resumption order. Had it been a case of no activity at all being conducted

by the petitioner, the notice dated 27.11.2019, issued in the first instance

by the Collector would have stated so and process for resumption would

then extend to the entire ten acres.

16. The learned single Judge, therefore, could not have gone into the

question as to whether the petitioner was at all conducting its activities

from the premises in question as that was never the scope of examination

before the learned single Judge. The issue that was required to be

considered in fact was whether the resumption order could legally and

justifiably be issued, only because the entire extent of land granted in

terms of B.S.O.24 had not been fully utilized by the petitioner, for the

purposes for which it was granted and whether such a non-utilization of the

rest of the land would said to be in violation of the B.S.O.24.

17. Since in the impugned order passed by the Collector a reference

was made to B.S.O.24 (6) (2), which was invoked for purposes of passing

the order of resumption, it would be relevant to reproduce the same.

“24. Placing State land at the disposal of a person, an

institution or a local body and exemption for land revenue:

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

8

6. Condition for the grant of State land :-(i) Lands at the disposal

of Government :-A grant of State land whether for religious,

educational or other public purpose should always contain the

following conditions :-

(1) The land shall be used ............ and for no other purpose.

(2) The Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any

buildings thereon, in the event of the infringement of any of the

conditions of the grant. In the event of such resumption no

compensation shall be payable for any improvements that may have

been effected, or other works that may have been executed on the

land by the grantee and the grantee shall not be entitled to the

repayment of any amount that may have been paid to the Government

for the grant. If there are buildings on the land the Government may

direct the grantee to remove them.

(3) The Government may resume the land wholly or in part, with any

buildings thereon, if in the opinion of the Government the land is

required for a public purpose or for conducting mining operations. In

the event of such resumption or in the event of the acquisition of the

land for any reason, the compensation payable for the land and trees,

shall in no case exceed the amount paid for them by the grantee or

their value at the time of resumption or acquisition whichever may be

less.

(4) In the event of resumption under condition (3), if there are buildings

on the land, the Government shall pay compensation for them in

accordance with the provisions of condition (5).

(5) In the event of the resumption of the land under condition (3) or in

the event of the acquisition of the land for any reason the

compensation payable for buildings or other improvement shall in no

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

9

case exceed the amount paid for them by the grantee at the time of

grant or their value at the time of resumption or acquisition whichever

may be less, together with the initial cost or the value at the time of

resumption or acquisition, whichever may be less of any buildings

erected or other improvements effected on the land by the grantee in

accordance with the terms of the grant. The amount of any grant made

by the Government towards the cost of the buildings or other

improvements shall be deducted from the compensation payable under

this condition.

(6) ....

(7) .....”

18. A reference to B.S.O.24 (6)(1) shows that the land is required to be

used for no other purpose than the one for which the grant has been made.

Whereas, B.S.O.24 (6)(2) which has been invoked in the present case

envisages that the Government may resume the land wholly or in part with

any buildings thereupon, in the event of infringement of any of the

conditions of the grant.

The resumption in such a case of infringement of the condition of the

grant, envisages no compensation as payable for any improvement that

may have been effected on the land in question.

On the other hand, resumption under B.S.O.24 (6)(3) is permissible

when the land is required for a public purpose or for conducting mining

operations in which event, compensation is payable for the land, which in

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

10

no case would exceed the amount paid by the grantee. The buildings in the

land in that situation would be liable to be compensated for, in accordance

with B.S.O.24 (6) sub-clause 5.

19. In the present case, the conditions for grant have not been

specifically placed before us. However, the purpose of the grant can be

deduced in view of the Government Order bearing number

G.O.Ms.No.1405 dated 03.11.2007, for the purpose of setting up

Rehabilitation Institute.

20. Admittedly, the institute has been established, although its

functioning may not be up to the desired level as is sought to be suggested

by the Government. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that this was an

institute which was one of its kind in the entire Andhra Pradesh, which

caters to the needs of that category of mentally and physically challenged

citizens which appear to have not received the priority which it ought to

have received either from the Government or from the public or the private

sector. Nevertheless, the aims and objectives of the institute appear to be

noble as can be gauged from the fact that its Founder has been

recognised, as having made that contribution, for which many awards have

been conferred upon him.

21. In our opinion, the resumption order is unsustainable, inasmuch as,

firstly it was never the condition of the grant that the entire land would be

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

11

utilized for construction nor did the Government at the time of giving grant

approved a vision document, on paper containing the layout plans, etc.,

which were required to be achieved, commensurate with the milestones

fixed by the Government in that regard. The Government would have been

justified in resuming the land in question by invoking B.S.O.24 (6) (2), only

if the petitioner instead of running a service oriented institute had opened a

hotel or a bar for serving drinks or for any other matter unconnected with

the purpose of the grant. This, however, is not the case before us.

While it may be true that land is a natural resource, which is

becoming scarce by every passing day on account of the increase in

human activity in diverse fields, unless the world discovers another planet

which is fit for human habitation, yet the grant made in accordance with law

cannot be permitted to be resumed on grounds which are unsustainable.

22. In our opinion, B.S.O.24 (6)(2) could never have been invoked for

resumption of nine acres on account of non-utilization of that portion of the

land in question. In fact, the explanation rendered by the petitioner in

response to the notice dated 27.11.2019, do suggest that while the

intention to carry out the purpose of the grant continued, hardships on

account of financial crunch and lack of financial help from the Government

and other organisations was finding it difficult to run or expand its

operations. If the institute like the petitioner is the only kind of the institute

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

12

in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, then steps ought to have been taken

by the Government in ensuring that the institute is nurtured in a way that its

services, which are sought to be provided through the institute, actually are

fortified for the benefit of the mentally challenged as also the physically

handicapped.

23. The entire process of resumption of nine acres of land appears to

have been initiated after a report had been submitted by the Tahsildar,

Kadapa dated 20.11.2019, pursuant to the issuance of Government Order

bearing number G.O.Ms.No.57, dated 16.02.2015, which authorises the

District Collectors to cancel the alienation and resume the land by following

due procedure, in cases where the allotee had not utilized the land „for the

purpose for which it is allotted or had changed the purpose‟. In the present

case, the purpose had certainly not changed. On the other hand, the

institute was set up and continues to operate as can be seen from the

documents placed on record, which shows not only that the students were

undergoing the courses but were also taking the examination from the said

institute.

24. For the reasons mentioned above, we cannot persuade ourselves to

accept the view expressed by the learned single Judge and therefore, the

resumption order dated 16.02.2020, is accordingly quashed and the

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1179 of 2023

13

judgment and order impugned dated 15.09.2023, is set aside. Accordingly,

the present writ appeal is allowed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR , CJ. R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO , J.

SSN