The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State cannot continue to retain land provided for the establishment of a government school after the very purpose for which it was given has been abandoned. Observing that the Education Department could not retain possession of the land following the closure of the school due to zero student enrolment, the Court directed the State to restore possession to the landowners.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “The respondent-State Education Department having abandoned the purpose for which the petitioner's grandfather had parted with his land in its favour, cannot be permitted to retain the land,"the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed. Holding that the purpose for which the land had been given stood abandoned after the Government Primary School was closed, the Court directed the State to restore possession of the land to its owners within four weeks.”

Background:

The petitioner submitted that his grandfather 'gave' his owned land around 50 years ago for establishing Government Primary School, Gokaswari, in Shimla district. The school functioned as primary school for nearly five decades and was later upgraded to a middle school. However, in 2017 due to less student enrolments, the school was closed and was merged with a nearby government school in 2024.

He contended that his grandfather had parted with the land only for the specific purpose of running a government school in the village. So, now that the school had been permanently closed, the purpose for which the land was given stood abandoned, entitling the owners to recover possession.

The petitioner served a legal notice to the State Education Department, seeking possession of the land in question. However, state did not respond to it. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

In response, the state contended that the land was donated/gifted by the petitioner's grandfather to the State Education Department about 50 years ago for the purpose of running a Government Primary School.It submitted that the school had served the public for several decades before being merged with another school pursuant to a policy decision relating to institutions with very low student strength.

It further contended that in absence of any revocation or reversion clause in the gift deed, the gift deed has become absolute and irrevocable in terms of Section 126 of the Act Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Rejecting the State's contention that the land had been irrevocably gifted, the court noted that the petitioner had consistently maintained that the land was merely "given" for the limited purpose of establishing a government school. Further the revenue records reflected that the land was under the ownership of petitioner's father and there was no gift deed available.

The Court held that under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, a gift of immovable property can only be effected through a registered instrument. Consequently, in the absence of a registered gift deed, the State could not claim ownership or invoke Section 126 relating to irrevocable gifts.

The Court further remarked that even if the State's possession were treated as a licence under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, the licence would be deemed revoked under Section 62(f) because it had been granted for the specific purpose of running a government school, which had admittedly been abandoned. The Court also noted that the State had not pleaded that any permanent work had been executed so as to attract the protection under Section 60(b).

Thus, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to hand back possession to the landowners within four weeks.

Case Name: Rattan Sain v. State of H.P.

Case No.: CWP No. 20737 of 2025

Decision Date: 01.07.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order