PRESIDENT, VIDYA PRASARAK SAMITHI, RAMDURG versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT & ORS.
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 735, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 735 
PRESIDENT, VIDYA PRASARAK SAMITHI, RAMDURG 
A 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 11992 of2016) 
DECEMBER 09, 2016 
B 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Government Grant: 
Government Land -
Grant of -
Propriety - Rival claims by two educational institutions (appellant 
and respondent No. 3) - In respect of Government land for use of C 
the same as playground for their respective institutions - Grant of 
land in favour of the appellant - Confirmed by the appellate 
authorities and Single Judge of High Court - Division Bench set 
aside the orders whereby the land was granted - On appeal, held: 
Division Bench rightly concluded that the land in question had 
already been sold by the Government to respondent No. 3 and once 
D 
the ownership of the land vested in it, the same could not have been 
granted in favour of appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The Division Bench of the High Court correctly 
came to the conclusion that the school was transferred in favour 
of respondent No. 3 and since the payment of the land in question 
has already been made by respondent No. 3 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,_ the 
reasoning given by the High Court cannot be questioned in the 
given facts. [Para 13) [740-E-l') 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTlON: Civil Appeal No. 11992 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order
dated 29. l 0.2007 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore i11 W. A. No. 850 of 2004. 
Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., C. M. Angadi, Rameshwar Prasad 
Goyal, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
V. V. S. Rao, Sr. Adv., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina 
Madhavan, Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Ms. Vijaya Shree Pattnaik, 
735 
E 
F 
G 
H
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Mis. Lawyer S. Knit & Co., Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 
B 
29'h October, 2007 passed by the High Court ofKamataka 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 No.2 herein) and confirmed by Deputy Commissioner, 
Belgaum (Respondent No. I herein), are not legal and valid and set aside 
C 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), 
D 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 
E 
the appellant, it appears from the facts that on an application made by 
the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum, by his order dated 
l 81h
February, 1970, granted the land in question in favourof the appellant. 
This order was challenged by Respondent No.3 by filing an appeal before 
the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum. The Deputy Commissioner 
F 
confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner granting land. 
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, 
G cancelled the grant ofland 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 
H dismissed the revision petition and confim1ed the arrangement suggested
PRESIDENT, VIDYA PRASARAK SAMITHI, RAMDURG v. DY. 737 
COMMNR., BELGAUM DIST. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
by the Divisional Commissioner. Hence, Vidya Prasarak Samithi filed a 
A 
writ petition before the High Court, being Writ Petition No.3314 ofl 979. 
The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by its order 
dated 20"' June, 1980 remanding the matter to the Assistant 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 thattheAssistant 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: 
B 
c 
D 
BVVS
acquired 4 acres of land in Ramdurg town under the Land 
E 
Acquisition Act and its possession was handed over to the BVVS on 
191h December, 1979. The BVVS constructed a school building meant 
for Girls Junior College on this land. The remaining area (120 Mtr. x40 
Mtr.) is available for playground. It has been leveled and developed as 
playground. The playground developed by BVVS at its newly acquired .. F 
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. Vidya Prasarak Samiti, Ramdurg is 
not having any land for its playground and in fact the college itself is 
being run in a rented building. 
G 
7. Considering the above facts, the Assistant Commissioner by its 
order dated 14"' 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. I by order H
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
dated 22"d January, 1994 confirmed the order of the Assistant 
Commissioner dated l 4'h October, 1990. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No. I, 
Respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the KarnatakaAppellate 
Tribunal, Bangalore. The said Tribunal by its order dated 31" January, 
1996 set aside the orders passed by Respondent Nos. I & 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 2S'h October, 
1997. BVVS filed an appeal before Respondent No. I - The Deputy 
Commissioner, Belgaum District. Respondent No. I 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 beingAppeal No.129 
of 1999, before the KarnatakaAppellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal 
by its order dated 27'h 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 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 of2003, before the High Court 
ofKarnataka. 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 ce1tain 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 ofland 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.
PRESIDENT, VJDYA PRASARAK SAM1TH1, RAMDURG v. DY. 739 
COMMNR., BELGAUM DJST. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
I 0. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held 
A 
that the Government at the instance of respondent No.3 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 
B 
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 KarnatakaAppellate 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 
C 
ofland. 
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 23'd July, 1966, the management of the Government School 
was transferred in favour ofBVVS with certain conditions. One of the 
D 
important conditions enumerated therein was that the ownership of the 
immovable property in question will vest with the Government. 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 Jetter, 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 
E 
F 
was brought to the notice of the Public Works Department. Thereafter, 
a trust deed was registered by BVVS (Respondent No.3) wherefrom it 
G 
would be evident that the property in question though belonged to the 
Education Department, since the 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 ofBVVS 
for its market value. The Division Bench of the High Court further held H
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
that there is clinching documentary evidence in favour ofBVVS 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 
B 
c 
D 
. E 
F 
G 
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. I 
and 2 have committed illegality in law in granting the land in question in 
favour ofVidya 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 hearingthe 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. 
Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal dismissed.