No Gift Deed, No Title: HP High Court Orders State to Return Land Taken for Closed School

Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State Education Department to return land given by a petitioner's grandfather after the school built on it was closed and merged with a nearby institution, finding neither a valid registered gift deed nor any continuing purpose to justify retention.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, has ordered the State Education Department to hand back land — taken from a family roughly fifty years ago for running a government primary school — after the school was closed in 2024 and its students merged into institutions at Dhamwari. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, sitting singly, allowed the writ petition filed by Rattan Sain, holding that the State could produce no registered gift deed to establish title over the land, and that even if the arrangement were treated as a licence, the closure of the school amounted to an abandonment of the specified purpose, triggering deemed revocation under Section 62(f) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court gave the State four weeks to restore possession to the landowners.

How the Land Came to the Education Department

Rattan Sain's grandfather had given land comprised in Khewat No. 89/81, Khasra Nos. 913 and 914, situated at Sub Tehsil Dhamwari, District Shimla, to the State Education Department for running a Government Primary School at his native village. The department opened Government Primary School Gokaswari on that land; the school was later upgraded to a Middle School. The middle school was closed in 2017 because student enrolment had fallen to nil, owing to the nearby Government Senior Secondary School at Dhamwari becoming operational.

On 17 August 2024, the State also closed Government Primary School Gokaswari itself — following a policy to merge schools with five or fewer students into the nearest institution. The teaching staff was shifted to GCPS Dhamwari, which now runs adjacent to the Senior Secondary School there. The school building on the disputed land, described as an old dilapidated two-room structure, was left vacant.

After the closure, Rattan Sain served a legal notice dated 29 August 2025 on the State Education Department, seeking return of the land. When the State did not act, he approached the High Court.

The State's Attempt to Use the Anganwari and the Gift Deed Argument

The State's reply acknowledged that the land had been donated or gifted by the petitioner's grandfather around fifty years ago for the purpose of running a primary school. However, the State argued that because no revocation or reversion clause existed in the gift deed, the gift had become absolute and irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

There was a further development the court noted. On 25 September 2025 — after the State received the petitioner's legal notice — the Directorate of Education handed over the vacant school rooms to Anganwari Kendra Ambani on a temporary basis. The petitioner's rejoinder contended that the Anganwari Centre had previously been running in a building right next to Government Primary School Gokaswari, and that the transfer was ordered specifically to defeat his claim. The court recorded this sequence without expressing approval of the State's conduct in that regard.

Why the Gift Deed Argument Failed

Justice Rewal Dua examined the Section 126 defence and rejected it on a foundational ground: the State admitted in its reply that it had no record of any gift deed executed by the petitioner's grandfather. Without a deed on record, the question of whether a revocation or reversion clause existed simply did not arise.

The court turned to Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a gift of immovable property to be made by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, makes instruments of gift of immovable property compulsorily registrable. Because neither a written instrument nor its registration could be shown, the State's claim of an absolute gift had no legal foundation.

The jamabandi for the year 2020–21, placed on record as Annexure P-1, reinforced this conclusion. It recorded the land as being in the possession of the State Education Department but under the ownership of the petitioner's father and co-owners. Had a valid registered gift transferred title, the ownership entry would have been mutated in the State's favour. It had not been.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gomtibai (Smt) (Dead) through LRs and others v. Mattulala (Dead) through LRs, (1996) 11 SCC 681, which held that there can be no gift of immovable property without a written instrument that is also compulsorily registrable, and that the donor loses title only when the gift deed is duly registered. Justice Rewal Dua quoted the relevant passage, which states: “in the absence of any registered instrument of gift and acceptance thereof by the done, the said property could not be said to have been legally transferred.” Applying that principle, the court held that any oral arrangement could not operate as a valid gift, and no title had passed to the State.

The Licence Analysis and Section 62(f) of the Easements Act

Justice Rewal Dua also addressed the arrangement from the angle of licence law, noting that even if the respondent's possession were treated as a licence — though that was not the State's own pleaded case — the outcome would be the same.

Section 62(f) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, provides that a licence is deemed to be revoked where it was granted for a specified purpose and that purpose is attained, or abandoned, or becomes impracticable. The court found that the land had admittedly been given for the specific purpose of running Government Primary School Gokaswari. That school had been closed and merged with GCPS Dhamwari. The purpose was, therefore, abandoned.

The court also noted that the State had not pleaded, let alone proved, that any work of permanent character had been executed on the land — which would have been relevant to the irrevocability provision under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The Supreme Court's reasoning in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others, (1999) 6 SCC 464, was cited to show that even an otherwise irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) is deemed revoked under Section 62(f) once the specified purpose is abandoned or becomes impracticable.

Taken together, the two lines of reasoning — absence of a registered gift deed and abandonment of the specified purpose — led the court to the same destination: the State could not justify continued retention of the land.

Order

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua allowed CWP No. 20737 of 2025 on 1 July 2026. The State Education Department was directed to restore possession of the land in question to its owners within four weeks from the date of the order. Any pending miscellaneous applications in the petition were also disposed of.