PRESIDENT, VIDYA PRASARAK SAMITHI, RAMDURG versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 09-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 Pras

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.