Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO.   ………….   OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.5603 of 2008)

President, Vidya Prasarak Samithi, Ramdurg      Appellant(s)

:Versus:

Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District & Ors.   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

29th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at

Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.850 of 2004, whereby the High

Court  allowed the  appeal  filed  by  Respondent  No.3  herein.

The  High  Court  by  the  impugned  judgment  held  that  the

orders  passed  by  the  Assistant  Commissioner  (Respondent

Page 2

2

No.2  herein)  and  confirmed  by  Deputy  Commissioner,

Belgaum (Respondent  No.1  herein),  are  not  legal  and valid

and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge

affirming the orders passed by the said respondents. 3.   The facts of  the case are as follows: The appellant Vidya

Prasarak  Samithi,  Ramdurg,  a  Trust  registered  under  the

Bombay Public Trusts Act and Basaveshwar Vidya Vardhak

Sangha  (“BVVS”  for  short),  respondent  No.3  herein,  are

running  educational  institutions  at  Ramdurg.  The  dispute

between them is  in  respect  of  the  Government  land,  being

CTS No.1674/1, in respect of which there are rival claims by

Vidya Prasarak Samithi and BVVS for use as playground for

students  of  their  respective  institutions.  As  there  was  no

playground in  the  college  run by  the  appellant,  it  appears

from the facts that on an application made by the appellant,

the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum, by his order dated 18th

February, 1970, granted the land in question in favour of  the

appellant. This order was challenged by Respondent No.3 by

filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum.

The  Deputy  Commissioner  confirmed  the  order  of  the

Assistant  Commissioner  granting  land.  The  order  of  the

Page 3

3

Deputy  Commissioner  was  further  confirmed  by  the

Divisional Commissioner.  

4. Against the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner

granting land in favour of the appellant herein, an appeal was

preferred  by  BVVS  before  the  Deputy  Commissioner,

Belgaum.  The  Deputy  Commissioner  dismissed  the  said

appeal. Further, an appeal was preferred by BVVS before the

Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal, cancelled

the  grant  of  land  and  further  directed  that  both  the

institutions,  instead  of  litigating,  should  evolve  an

arrangement for the common use of the playground for the

benefit of their students.  

5. Against the said order, Vidya Prasarak Samithi filed a revision

petition  before  the  Karnataka  Appellate  Tribunal.  The  said

Tribunal  dismissed the  revision petition and confirmed the

arrangement  suggested  by  the  Divisional  Commissioner.

Hence, Vidya Prasarak Samithi filed a writ petition before the

High Court, being Writ Petition No.3314 of 1979.  The said

writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by its order

dated 20th June, 1980 remanding the matter to the Assistant

Page 4

4

Commissioner, Belgaum, with a direction to make an inquiry

as to whether BVVS has since acquired a separate plot for the

purpose  of  playground  and  whether  that  land  would  be

sufficient as required by the institution and if the points are

found  in  the  affirmative,  then  the  Assistant  Commissioner

would be well advised to grant the land involved, being CTS

No.1674/1,  exclusively  to  Vidya  Prasarak  Samithi.   It  is

further held by the High Court that if the plot purchased by

BVVS is not  sufficient  for  its  requirement or  if  there is  no

such  purchase,  then  the  Assistant  Commissioner  should

work out a satisfactory arrangement to share CTS No.1674/1,

for use as playground on alternative dates by the said two

institutions. The High Court further held that the Assistant

Commissioner  should  also  hold  inquiry  after  affording

opportunities to the parties of being heard.

6. Pursuant to and in terms of the order of the High Court, the

Assistant Commissioner conducted an inquiry into the matter

and after giving opportunities to the parties of being heard,

made the following findings:   BVVS acquired 4 acres of land in Ramdurg town under the

Land Acquisition Act and its possession was handed over to

Page 5

5

the BVVS on 19th December, 1979. The BVVS constructed a

school building meant for Girls Junior College on this land.

The  remaining  area  (120  Mtr.  x  40  Mtr.)  is  available  for

playground. It has been leveled and developed as playground.

The playground developed by BVVS at its newly acquired land

is sufficient for its purpose.  The plea taken by BVVS that it

cannot be used by the students of Girls Junior College and

Boys  Junior  College,  cannot  be  accepted,  while  both  the

colleges were run in the same building before acquisition of

the said land. BVVS Ramdurg is not having any land for its

playground and in  fact  the  college  itself  is  being  run in  a

rented building.  

7. Considering the above facts, the Assistant Commissioner by

its order dated 14th October, 1990 granted the land being CTS

No.1674/1, of Ramdurg Town, exclusively in favour of Vidya

Prasaraka  Samithi,  Ramdurg.  An  appeal  was  preferred  by

Respondent No.3 before the Deputy Commissioner which was

dismissed.  Respondent  No.1  by  order  dated  22nd January,

1994  confirmed  the  order  of  the  Assistant  Commissioner

dated 14th October, 1990.

Page 6

6

8. Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  passed  by  Respondent  No.1,

Respondent  No.3  filed  a  writ  petition before  the  Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The said Tribunal by its order

dated  31st January,  1996  set  aside  the  orders  passed  by

Respondent  Nos.1  & 2  and  again  remanded the  matter  to

Respondent  No.2.   Respondent No.2 again conducted fresh

inquiry and spot inspection and further confirmed the grant

of  land  in  favour  of  the  appellant  by  his  order  dated  25 th

October, 1997.  BVVS filed an appeal before Respondent No.1

-  The Deputy Commissioner,  Belgaum District.  Respondent

No.1 by his order dated 23 January, 1999 confirmed the order

of  Respondent  No.2  and  dismissed  the  appeal.  BVVS

(Respondent  No.3)  filed  an  appeal  being  Appeal  No.129  of

1999, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate

Tribunal by its order dated 27th August, 1999, modified the

orders  passed  by  the  Assistant  Commissioner  and  Deputy

Commissioner  and  ordered  the  appellant  and  Respondent

No.3  to  use  the  playground  bearing  CTS  No.1674/1  on

alternative days. Respondent No.3 was given a preference to

make  use  of  it  on  Sunday  and  alternative  days  and  the

Page 7

7

appellant was to use it from Monday and alternative days.  

9. In these circumstances, the appellant feeling aggrieved filed a

writ petition, being Writ Petition No.2325 of 2003, before the

High Court  of  Karnataka.  The  learned Single  Judge of  the

High Court by his order dated 24.11.2003 allowed the writ

petition filed by the appellant and set aside the order passed

by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the grant of

land in favour of the appellant. The reasonings given by the

learned Single Judge of the High Court are:  (a) On remand the Assistant Commissioner duly considered

the  case  afresh  and  after  inspection  of  the  property  in

question, found that certain land measuring 120 Mtr. x 40

Mtr.,  which is  vacant  land belonging  to  BVVS (respondent

No.3), is sufficient for it to use it as playground.  (b)  BVVS  has  not  made  any  application  for  grant  of  land

before  the  Revenue  Authorities  and  in  the  absence  of  any

such application for grant, BVVS has no right to challenge the

order of grant.  (c) The said point was not considered by the Tribunal.

10. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court

held that the Government at the instance of respondent No.3

Page 8

8

has acquired 4 acres of land for the purpose of playground.

Therefore,  it  was  the  duty  of  Respondent  No.3  to  reserve

sufficient extent of land for use as playground and rest of the

land would have been utilized for construction of the school.

On the other hand, the appellant has no land of its own for

use as playground and BVVS did not ever question the said

plea of  the appellant.   In these circumstances,  the learned

Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ

petition  and  quashed  the  order  passed  by  the  Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the Division Bench of the

High Court without considering such facts and without taking

into consideration the land grant rules, quashed the order of

grant of land.

11. Being  aggrieved,  BVVS  filed  an  appeal  before  the  Division

Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench noted that by a

Government Order dated 23rd July, 1966, the management of

the  Government  School  was transferred in  favour  of  BVVS

with  certain  conditions.  One  of  the  important  conditions

enumerated therein was that the ownership of the immovable

property  in  question  will  vest  with  the  Government.

Page 9

9

Subsequent  thereto  the  Government  passed  another  order

dated 26.1.1967, wherein it  was stated that consequent on

the  transfer  of  administration  of  the  State  High  School,

Ramdurg  to  the  control  and  management  of  BVVS,  vide

Government order  dated 23.7.1966,  on a permanent basis,

the  Government  has  carefully  considered  the  question  of

transfer of its properties after proper valuation and directed

that  the  properties  including  buildings  and  playground,

should be transferred to the management of the School at the

prevailing market rate to be fixed by the competent valuer of

the Public Works Department. Accordingly, the Public Works

Department fixed the market value of the property in question

at Rs.51,600/- vide valuation letter, which was duly paid by

BVVS in favour of the Public Works Department by challan

vide  document  produced  at  Annexure  R-3  in  the  office  of

Bagalkot  Treasury on 8.11.1982 which was brought to the

notice  of  the  Public  Works Department.  Thereafter,  a  trust

deed was registered by BVVS (Respondent No.3) wherefrom it

would  be  evident  that  the  property  in  question  though

belonged  to  the  Education  Department,  since  the

Page 10

10

administration and management of  the High School run by

the  Education  Department  was  transferred  to  BVVS,  its

property, namely, playground was also transferred in favour

of BVVS for its market value. The Division Bench of the High

Court  further  held  that  there  is  clinching  documentary

evidence in favour of BVVS to justify its claim of ownership in

respect of the property in question and, therefore, the land in

question was not available for grant as was observed by the

learned Single Judge. It was further held that the land could

have  been  granted  if  the  land  was  available  in  the  list  of

available lands for the purpose of grant in favour of either the

appellant or any eligible person for educational purposes. The

High Court further held that the land was not available at the

time of  granting the same in favour of  the appellant Vidya

Prasarak  Samithi.  The  Division  Bench  also  held  that  the

undisputed fact was that the said playground was being used

by the Government High School  and the said property was

one of its properties, and the same had been transferred to

BVVS  after  fixing  the  market  value  by  the  Public  Works

Department and that therefore, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have

Page 11

11

committed illegality in law in granting the land in question in

favour of Vidya Prasarak Samithi, the appellant herein.  

12. Accordingly, the High Court held that the order passed

by  the  second  respondent  and  confirmed  by  the  first

respondent are not legal and valid. Hence, the said orders and

the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court were

set aside by the Division Bench.

13. It appears to us, after hearing the parties and after going

through the facts of this case, that the High Court correctly

came to  the  conclusion that  the  school  was  transferred in

favour of the Respondent No.3 - BVVS and since the payment

of the land in question has already been made by BVVS, and

once the ownership of the said land has vested in it, it cannot

be  granted  in  favour  of  any  other  person  or  institution.

Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  reasoning  given  by  the  High

Court cannot be questioned in the given facts. We accept the

reasoning  given  by  the  High  Court  and  uphold  the  order

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside

the  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  as  also  the

orders passed by the second respondent and first respondent.

Page 12

12

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  

………………………………….J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

………………………………….J (Amitava Roy)

New Delhi; December 9, 2016.