THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.versusDR. PASUPULETI NIRMALA HANUMANTHA RAO CHARITABLE TRUST

                   [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 679

               The State of Telangana & Ors.
                             v.
  Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust
                       (Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 2025)
                                  14 May 2025
                [Dipankar Datta and Manmohan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       i) Whether alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak,
       Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 08.02.2001
       was a sale or alienation/allotment; ii) whether any condition was
       imposed pursuant to the alienation of land by the Government of
       Andhra Pradesh; iii) whether any condition/restriction imposed by
       the State Government would be violative of s.10 of the Transfer
       of Property Act, 1882.

                                   Headnotes†
       Telangana Land Revenue Act – ss.25 and 172 – Telangana
       Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 –
       rr.5 and 6 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.10 – Whether
       alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak, Government
       of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 08.02.2001 was a sale or
       alienation/allotment:
       Held: Alienation of land by appellant-state was not a sale but
       an allotment under a statutory scheme – The land in question
       is a Government land as per entries of record – Further, the
       respondent, being a charitable trust, had applied for allotment
       of land – A charitable trust can use land for charitable purposes
       only – The request of the Respondent-Trust was processed as per
       the instructions laid down in G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 02.07.1990
       and the land in question was conditionally allotted by the District
       Collector, Medak, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
       08.02.2001 – The alienation letter dated 08.02.2001 issued by the
       District Collector, Medak, which specifically records that sanction
       is accorded to alienation of Government land subject to payment
       of market value and subject to the three conditions – It was made
       clear that in case of deviation of the said three conditions, the land
       shall be resumed back by the Revenue authorities – Consequently,
       alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak, Government of
* Author
2                                                               [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 08.02.2001 was not a sale, but
     an allotment under a statutory Scheme. [Paras 15-18]

     Telangana Land Revenue Act – ss.25 and 172 – Telangana
     Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 – rr.5
     and 6 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.10 – Whether any
     condition was imposed pursuant to the alienation of land by
     the Government of Andhra Pradesh:
     Held: The allotment of land was conditional to the respondent-
     Trust’s knowledge – The allotment was to be used for a charitable
     purpose only – Even in the respondent-Trust’s understanding, the
     allotment of land was conditional – In response to the appellant’s
     letter dated 23.11.2011, the respondent-Trust had specifically replied
     that there were no violations of the conditions laid down in the letter
     dated 08.02.2001 and the land was being utilized for the purpose
     for which it was allotted – It was also specifically averred in the writ
     petition filed by the respondent-Trust that as the appellant-State
     had offered the land as per G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 02.07.1990
     subject to three conditions vide proceedings No.E3/7542/98
     dated 08.02.2001, the respondent-Trust had followed the same
     ‘scrupulously’ – Consequently, the respondent-Trust’s argument
     that no specific purpose of allotment was specified is false to the
     respondent-Trust’s knowledge. [Paras 19, 20]

     Telangana Land Revenue Act – ss.25 and 172 – Telangana
     Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 – rr.5
     and 6 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.10 – Whether the
     High Court fell in error in making out a case of sale:
     Held: High Court fell in error in making out a case of sale, ignoring
     the fact that the appellant-State had allotted land to the respondent-
     Trust under a statutory scheme of alienation/allotment. [Para 21]

     Telangana Land Revenue Act – ss.25 and 172 – Telangana
     Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 – rr.5
     and 6 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.10 – Whether any
     condition/restriction imposed by the State Government would
     be violative of Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
     Held: This Court is of the view that the appellant-State had allotted
     land to public trust for public purpose – In such a situation, the State
     cannot be put in the normal classical inter vivos party’s position as
     public interest is supreme and must prevail – This Court is also of
     the opinion that Rules 1975 and the Board of Revenue Standing
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             3

                    The State of Telangana & Ors. v.
        Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

     Orders operate in a completely distinct space and are not eclipsed
     by s.10 of the TPA. [Para 23]

     Telangana Land Revenue Act – ss.25 and 172 – Telangana
     Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 –
     Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.10 – Decision to cut a
     colony – A fraud on statute:
     Held: The Respondent-Trust, despite having accepted the
     conditions of grant of alienation laid down under Condition No.6
     of the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders, violated these
     conditions as the said land was not used for the purpose for which
     it was granted, i.e. for the purpose of a Charitable Trust – On
     the contrary, a colony was cut on the said land, which was sub-
     divided into plots, some of which have already been sold to third
     parties vide different sale deeds in violation of the conditions of
     allotment – The decision to cut a colony in violation of the specific
     conditions on which land had been allotted cannot be termed as
     anything else but fraud on the statute. [Para 25]

                              Case Law Cited
     Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India
     & Ors. [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489; Natural Resources
     Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 [2012] 9 SCR
     311 : (2012) 10 SCC 1; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary
     & Ors. [2014] 8 SCR 446 : (2014) 9 SCC 516 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Telangana Land Revenue Act;
     Telangana Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975.

                             List of Keywords
     Allotment of land; Government land; Condition restricting the
     enjoyment of the land; Decision to cut a colony; Fraud on statute;
     Allotment under a statutory Scheme; Charitable Trust; Violation of
     the specific conditions.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2022 of the High Court
     for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No. 1328 of 2014
4                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Devina Sehgal, Ms. Palak Arora,
     S. Uday Bhanu.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv., D. Abhinav Rao, Abhisek Das,
     Ms. Megha Shaw, Raghav Bherwani.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Manmohan, J.

1.   Present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment
     and final order dated 05th July, 2022 passed by the High Court for
     the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.1328 of
     2014, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by
     the Appellants herein and upheld the judgment and order dated 24th
     June, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) 28980/2013 passed by the learned
     Single Judge. It is pertinent to mention that both the Courts below
     held that the Respondent-Trust is the absolute owner of the land to
     the extent of Ac.3.01 gts.in Sy. No.72/31 situated at Chinnathimmapur
     village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District, as the Appellant-State
     having sold the land on payment of market value could not have
     placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land and such
     restrictions were void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property
     Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TPA’). The relevant portion of
     the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced
     hereinbelow: -
          “7. Thus, learned Single Judge noted that respondent had
          purchased the subject land on payment of market value
          from the Government. On such purchase, respondent
          became the owner of the subject land whereafter, the
          same ceased to be a Government land or an assignable
          land. Having sold the land on payment of market value,
          the Government could not have placed any condition
          restricting the enjoyment of the land by the land owner.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            5

                    The State of Telangana & Ors. v.
        Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

           8. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken
           by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is
           made out.”

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
2.   Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-
     State, submitted that the impugned judgments of the High Court
     were untenable in law, inasmuch as, they did not consider the
     statutory scheme under which the Appellant-State had allotted land
     to the Respondent-Trust. He pointed out that under Section 25 of
     Telangana Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), the
     Commissioner/Collector can assign/set apart any land for the purpose
     of public benefit. He stated that to facilitate alienation of land, the
     State of Telangana has framed Telangana Alienation of State Lands
     and Land Revenue Rules 1975 (for short ‘Rules 1975’) under Section
     172 of the Act. The relevant portion of Rules 5 and 6 of the said
     Rules 1975 are reproduced herein below: -
           “5. (a) For every alienation of land requiring the sanction of
           the Board of Revenue or the State Government there shall
           be made an application by the Collector in the prescribed
           in Appendix I to these rules…….
           6.(a) Every grant of Alienation of State land whether for
           religious Educational or any other public purpose always
           be subject to 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.”
6                                                             [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


3.   He further stated that G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 02nd July, 1990 empowers
     the Commissioner, Land Revenue/ District Collectors to dispense
     Government lands by alienation on payment of market value. The
     relevant portion of the aforesaid G.O.Ms. is reproduced hereinbelow: -
          “REVENUE DEPARTMENT
          G.O.Ms. No.635                                Dated 2-7-1990
          1.   G.O.Ms. No.73, Revenue dated 20.01.1975.
          2.   From the Commissioner of land Revenue, Hyderabad
               D.G. Letter No.B1/653/90, dated 27.02.1990.
          ORDER:-
          The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of
          State lands and land Revenue Rules 1975, empower the
          Commissioner, Land Revenue land the District Collectors
          to dispense of Government lands by alienation to local
          Mediums and private institutions, Companies, Associations
          and private individuals on payment of market value. Illegible
          within certain limitations. Similar provisions is also available
          in B.S.O. 24 (empowering the Commissioner, land Revenue
          and District Collectors to dispose of Government land by
          alienation…..”
4.   The relevant portion of the Board Standing Order 24 referred to in
     G.O.Ms. No.635 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
          “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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           7

                    The State of Telangana & Ors. v.
        Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

                     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…..”
5.   He pointed out that in the present case, the District Collector, Medak
     vide order dated 08th February 2001, had allotted the subject land in
     exercise of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms. No. 635 (Revenue)
     dated 2nd July 1990. He emphasised that the only document on which
     the Respondent-Trust had relied upon to prove its title/ownership
     was the allotment letter issued under a statutory Scheme and not
     a sale deed.
6.   He further stated that the allotment was made subject to certain
     conditions, and it was specifically stated that any deviation from the
     said conditions would result in the land being resumed back by the
     revenue authorities.
7.   He contended that in the present case, the Appellant-State was not
     intending to sell the land but to allot the same to charitable trust for
     a charitable purpose for the benefit of public at large.
8.   Additionally, Mr. Reddy drew the attention of this Court to the General
     Power of Attorney dated 18th June 2011 (“GPA”) executed by the
     Respondent-Trust, qua the subject land. He contended that the
     Respondent-Trust had fraudulently executed a GPA without making
     any reference to the allotment letter dated 08th February, 2001 or
     the conditions on which the allotment of said land had been made.
     The relevant portion of GPA relied upon by him is reproduced
     hereinbelow: -
                     “GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
           KNOWN ALL MEN BY THE PRESENTS, THAT I Dr. P.
           HANUMANTH RAO S/O Dr. P. RAMA RAO, aged about
           66 years…….
           DO HEREBY NOMINATE, CONSTITUTE, APPOINT AND
           RETAIN
           SYED J AVED … … .A S M Y TR U E A ND LAW FU L
           ATTORNEY…..
8                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          WHEREAS I am the lawful owner, Pottedar and possessor
          of Agricultural Land bearing Sy.No.72/31, admeasuring
          Ac.3-01 Gts……having acquired the same from Smt. S.
          SHREE SUDHA W/O SRI SANGARAJU MANOHAR RAJU
          through a Regd. Sale Deed Vide Document No.859/1988,
          Dt: 09-03-1938 Regd. at SRO Gajwel, Medak District.
          Thereafter the Revenue officials have issued the Title
          Deed and Pattedar Passbooks vide title deed No.674409
          and the Patta No.143 respectively.
          WHEREAS, the said Smt. S. SHREE SUDHA W/O SRI
          SANGARAJU MANOHAR RAJU has purchased the said
          property from Shri MURTHY MURRAY S/O Late S.S.
          MURRAY through a Regd. Sale Deed vide Document
          No.695/1981, Dt. 03-07.1981 Regd. at SRO Gajwel,
          Medak District.
          AND WHEREAS, I am intending to hand over the above
          property agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 72/31 an extend
          of Ac.3-01 gts., situated at CHINNA THIMMAPUR Village,
          Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet Revenue Division, Medak District
          A.P. (hereinafter called the SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY)
          which is more fully described in the schedule of property
          but due to personal work I am not looking after the affairs
          of the said property personally as such I am not in position
          to deal with the intending purchase, as such I hereby
          empower and authorize my Attorney Mr. SYED JAVED
          S/o late S.G. MOHIUDDIN to deal with all the matters
          contained to him with the following powers……”
9.   Mr. Reddy lastly stated that the Power of Attorney holder had cut
     a colony by the name ‘Eden Orchard’ on the land allotted to the
     Respondent-Trust and even some of the plots had been sold to
     third parties without disclosing the conditions on which the initial
     allotment had been made.

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
10. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the
    Respondent-Trust contended that the subject land was sold by the
    State Government after following the due procedure stipulated in
    G.O.Ms. No. 635 dated 02nd July, 1990, wherein the District Collector,
    Medak in consultation with the Commissioner of Land Revenue sold
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             9

                    The State of Telangana & Ors. v.
        Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

     the land to the Respondent-Trust on payment of market value. He
     emphasised that the said sale was made at market value and the
     same was not an allotment at any concessional rate.
11. He further stated that the said alienation contained a general condition
    that “the land would be utilised only for the purpose for which it is
    allotted” without actually specifying the exact purpose for the allotment.
    Therefore, he submitted that there was no restriction/condition
    imposed on the usage of the land by the Respondent-Trust herein
    and in any event, any such condition on usage would be violative
    of Section 10 of the TPA – as held by the High Court. Since Section
    10 of the TPA was heavily relied upon by learned senior counsel
    for the Respondent-Trust, the same is reproduced herein below:-
           “10. Condition restraining alienation.—Where property
           is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely
           restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him
           from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property,
           the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a
           lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor
           or those claiming under him: provided that property may
           be transferred to or for the benefit of a woman (not being
           a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not
           have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the
           same or her beneficial interest therein.”
12. He further submitted that the resumption order dated 19th January
    2012 was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. He,
    however, stated that the said aspect was not considered by the
    learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, and therefore, if this
    Court was inclined to set aside the impugned orders, it should remand
    the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

     REJOINDER
13. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-State submitted
    that Section 10 of the TPA operates in a completely different sphere
    as it applies in a case of inter vivos transfer, whereas allotment by
    the Appellant-State is different from a private party engaging in inter
    vivos transfers. He contended that the learned Single Judge and the
    Division Bench had erred in not making a distinction between sale
    and allotment of the subject land.
10                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      ISSUES
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
    paper book, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise
    for consideration in the present proceedings, namely: -
      i.     Whether alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak,
             Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 8th February
             2001 was a sale or alienation/allotment?
      ii.    Whether any condition was imposed pursuant to the alienation
             of land by the Government of Andhra Pradesh? and
      iii.   Whether any condition/restriction imposed by the State
             Government would be violative of Section 10 of the TPA?

                               REASONING

      ALIENATION OF LAND BY APPELLANT-STATE WAS NOT A SALE
      BUT AN ALLOTMENT UNDER A STATUTORY SCHEME
15. Before answering the aforesaid issues, this Court is of the view that
    it is essential to outline the relevant facts. The land in question to the
    extent of Ac. 3.01 gts., falls under Sy. No.72/31 and is Government
    land as per entries of record and was declared as Government
    (Poramboke) land in the year 1989.
16. Further, the Respondent, being a charitable trust, had applied for
    allotment of land. A charitable trust can use land for charitable
    purposes only.
17. The request of the Respondent-Trust was processed as per the
    instructions laid down in G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 02nd July, 1990
    and the land in question was conditionally allotted by the District
    Collector, Medak, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 8th
    February 2001 by virtue of the power conferred under the Telangana
    Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975 framed
    under Sections 25 and 172 of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.635 dated
    2nd July 1990 read with Board Standing Order 24. The said fact is
    apparent from the alienation letter dated 8th February 2001 issued by
    the District Collector, Medak, which specifically records that sanction
    is accorded to alienation of Government land subject to payment of
    market value and subject to the following three conditions. It was
    made clear that in case of deviation of the said three conditions,
    the land shall be resumed back by the Revenue authorities. The
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          11

                    The State of Telangana & Ors. v.
        Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

     relevant portion of the alienation order dated 08th February 2001 is
     reproduced hereinbelow:
           “1. That the above land should be utilized only for the
           purpose for which it is allotted.
           2. That the construction work should be completed within
           (2) years from the date of handing over possession of
           the land.
           3. That the trees should be planted in the open place.”
           In case of any deviation of the above conditions the land
           shall be resumed back by the Revenue authorities….”
18. Consequently, alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak,
    Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 8th February, 2001
    was not a sale, but an allotment under a statutory Scheme.

     THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND WAS CONDITIONAL TO THE
     RESPONDENT-TRUST’S KNOWLEDGE
19. Though no specific purpose of allotment was mentioned, yet this Court
    is of the view that as the allotment was in favour of the Respondent-
    Trust, the allotment could be used for a charitable purpose only. Even
    in the Respondent-Trust’s understanding, the allotment of land was
    conditional. This would be apparent from the fact that not only in the
    contemporaneous correspondence, but even in the writ petition filed,
    there was an admission by the Respondent-Trust that the allotment
    was made for a charitable purpose, and the land was being used
    for the said purpose. In response to the Appellant’s letter dated 23rd
    November 2011, the Respondent-Trust had specifically replied that
    there were no violations of the conditions laid down in the letter dated
    8th February 2001 and the land was being utilized for the purpose for
    which it was allotted. The relevant portion of the Respondent-Trust’s
    reply dated 29th November 2011 is reproduced herein below: -
           “…I, further state that there are no such violations in
           the conditions laid down in the District Collector Medak
           Proceedings No.E3/7542/98, Dt.8.2.2001.
           After taking the possession the above land is being utilized
           for the purpose alienated. Class room, sheds were
           constructed within two years through our own funds…”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)
12                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


20. It was also specifically averred in the writ petition filed by the
    Respondent-Trust that as the Appellant-State had offered the land as
    per G.O.Ms. No.635 dated 2nd July 1990 subject to three conditions
    vide proceedings No.E3/7542/98 dated 08th February 2001, the
    Respondent-Trust had followed the same ‘scrupulously’. Consequently,
    the Respondent-Trust’s argument that no specific purpose of allotment
    was specified is false to the Respondent-Trust’s knowledge.

      HIGH COURT FELL IN ERROR IN MAKING OUT A CASE OF SALE
21. In fact, the case of the Respondent-Trust in its writ petition filed
    before the learned Single Judge was not that it was a case of sale,
    but it had been assured that, “the alienation of land is amounting to
    sale…”. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the High Court
    fell in error in making out a case of sale, ignoring the fact that the
    Appellant-State had allotted land to the Respondent-Trust under a
    statutory scheme of alienation/allotment.
22. This Court is further of the view that when the Government decides
    to sell its land, as the Respondent-Trust would like this Court to
    believe, the Government can neither select a buyer nor can it fix
    a price unless and until the said decision is backed by a social or
    economic or welfare policy/purpose – which is admittedly absent in the
    present case. It is a settled law that the Government cannot distribute
    State’s largesse and normally the State ‘must’ get the ‘maximum
    value’ of the resources, especially when State-owned assets are
    passed over to private individuals/entities unless there are good and
    cogent reasons for doing so in special circumstances. [See: Ramana
    Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India
    & Ors., 1979 (3) SCR 1014; Natural Resources Allocation, In Re,
    Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 and Manohar
    Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516].

      STATUTORY SCHEME OF ALLOTMENT NOT ECLIPSED BY
      SECTION 10
23. This Court is of the view that the Appellant-State had allotted land
    to public trust for public purpose. In such a situation, the State
    cannot be put in the normal classical inter vivos party’s position as
    public interest is supreme and must prevail. This Court is also of
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         13

                      The State of Telangana & Ors. v.
          Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

     the opinion that Rules 1975 and the Board of Revenue Standing
     Orders operate in a completely distinct space and are not eclipsed
     by Section 10 of the TPA.

     GPA REFLECTS MALAFIDES OF THE RESPONDENT-TRUST
     (ALLOTEE)
24. In any event, in 2011, Dr. Pasupuleti Niramala Hanumantha Rao,
    without disclosing that he is a Trustee of the Respondent-Trust
    to whom the land had been allotted by the State Government,
    appointed Sri Syed Javed as G.P.A. holder under the Registration
    Deed No.148/11 dated 18th June 2011. It is pertinent to mention
    that the conditions on which the allotment had been made by the
    State Government were not mentioned/disclosed in the G.P.A. which
    reflects malafides of the Respondent-Trust (allottee).

     DECISION TO CUT A COLONY – A FRAUD ON STATUTE
25. This Court is further of the view that the Respondent-Trust, despite
    having accepted the conditions of grant of alienation laid down under
    Condition No.6 of the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders, violated
    these conditions as the said land was not used for the purpose for
    which it was granted, i.e. for the purpose of a Charitable Trust. On the
    contrary, a colony was cut on the said land, which was sub-divided
    into plots, some of which have already been sold to third parties vide
    different sale deeds in violation of the conditions of allotment. This
    Court is of the opinion that the decision to cut a colony in violation
    of the specific conditions on which land had been allotted cannot
    be termed as anything else but fraud on the statute.

                                 CONCLUSION
26. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, the impugned judgments
    dated 24th June 2014 and 05th July 2022 are set aside and the
    Appeal, is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall
    stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan