THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
I.A. No. 1 of 2021
In
Writ Petition No.17371 of 2021
ORDER:-
The petitioners 1 to 6 claim to be the absolute owners and
possessors of different extents of land aggregating to Ac. 1.77
cents in Sy.No.241/3A2 to 241/3A6 of Tiruchanuru Village,
Tirupati Rural Mandal, District and are assailing the correctness
of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in
D.Dis.No.M1/19027(35)/4/2021 dated 15.07.2021, under which, the 2nd respondent refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that certain land in Sy.No.241/3 of Tirupati had belonged to Sri Hathiramji Mutt, which is arrayed as 8th respondent in the present writ petition. This Mutt is said to have issued a Saswatha Patta, on 21.11.1940, to one Sri N.Kodanda Ramaiah, on the basis of which, the said person became the owner of the land. Thereafter, about two acres of land in survey No. 241 was alienated by Sri N. Kodanda Ramaiah to two brothers Sri V. Veerappa and Sri V. Gopalakrishnaiah, in 1970 and 1971, by way of registered deeds of sale. Subsequently, this land was transferred from person to person by way of a Registered Deeds of Sale with the petitioners becoming owners of Ac. 1.77 cents of land by way of Registered Deeds of Sale executed in their favour at various points of time.
2
RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021
3. As this land is said to have been governed by the provisions of the A.P (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, applications had been made by the predecessor in title of the petitioners for conversion of the land into Ryotwari Patta and the same was granted on 14.06.1985 for an extent of Ac.1.60 cents of land in Sy.No.241/3 and another Ryotwari Patta was issued on 07.03.1986 to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.241/3. These pattas were challenged before the revenue authorities and also by way of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals before the erstwhile High Court of A.P. After various rounds of litigation, the orders granting Ryotwari pattas were confirmed. The latest orders in this regard being the order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 23.09.2004 which was affirmed by the orders of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by it's judgement dated 08-02-2011 in W.P. No. 9667 of 2005 and W.A. No. 1106 of 2008 and the order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 29.07.2013 which was affirmed by the orders of a learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by judgement dated 21-09-2013 in W.P. No. 27510 of 2013. Thereafter, the Petitioners had filed W.P.No.19290 of 2013, in which a direction to mutate the revenue entries in their favour was granted and the same was done, on 13.03.2014, after a contempt case had been filed.
4. At that stage, the 8th respondent, who was a party to some of the above proceedings, had initiated O.S.No.13 of 1972 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirupati seeking 3 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 recovery of the land in possession, against one Sri Muchakayala Venkatamuni, one of the purchasers from Sri N. Kodanda Ramaiah. This suit was dismissed, on 29.08.1975, with a finding by the II Additional District Munsif, Tirupati that the permanent lease given to Sri N.Kodanda Ramaiah would be binding on the plaintiff Mutt and that the suit was filed beyond Limitation. A.S.No.37 of 1976 filed before the Principal Sub Judge, Chittoor against this order was dismissed, on the ground of Limitation.
5. The petitioners having successfully resisted all attempts to dispute their title over the land had granted development rights to one M/s. Sri Venkateswara Construction Company, on this land, and construction of Apartments was taken up after obtaining all necessary permissions. Upon construction of Apartments by the said developer, the Petitioners had sought to register the deeds of sale for alienation of the 60 apartments constructed in the said land and had registered 19 such deeds of sale. At that stage, when the petitioners sought to register certain other apartments, the Sub- Registrar, Renigunta had informed the petitioners that the said property was included in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22 A(1)( c) of the Registration Act, by way of proceedings in endorsement G/1211/2016 dated 09.07.2016, which stated that these properties were endowment properties. The petitioners had thereupon filed applications for deletion of the properties from the 22-A list on the basis of the various orders and judgments obtained by the petitioners and their 4 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 predecessors in title. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments upon receipt of the applications made by the petitioners, had addressed letters to the Mahanth of the 8 th respondent, seeking a report on the question of issue of N.O.C to the petitioners. It appears that the Mahanth of the 8th respondent, on 06.11.2021, stated that the lands of the petitioners are in the name of the 8th respondent and entered in the register maintained under section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Endowments Act, 1987') and a No Objection Certificate should not be issued. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments had thereupon sought further information from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Protection Cell of the Endowment Department, who set out the entire history of litigation over the land and opined that the inclusion of the properties in the prohibited list of properties is not correct. Based on these reports and the report of Assistant Commissioner, dated 15.02.2021, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2021, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to delete their properties from the prohibited list with a direction to the petitioners to approach the A.P. Endowments Tribunal for any grievances against the entries made in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987
6. The petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that the right of the 8th respondent had stood extinguished a long time back by virtue of the various Judgments and orders of the revenue authorities as well as the 5 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 orders of this Court and as such, the 2nd respondent could not have directed the petitioners to approach the Endowments Tribunal, for deletion of the entry of the said property from the list maintained under Section 43 of the Act, 1987.
7. After notice, the 8th respondent had filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the 8th respondent detailed the flow of title and various transactions over this land and took the plea that the Saswatha patta said to have been granted in favour of Sri N.Kodanada Ramaiah was a fabricated patta and that the 8th respondent had also filed W.P.(SR).No.171991 of 2013 against the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals which went against the 8th respondent and same is pending. The 8th respondent also took the stand that the effect of the Saswatha patta, even it is taken to be genuine, would not go to the extent of conferring the ownership of the land on Sri N.Kodanda Ramaiah and consequently on any of the other subsequent purchasers.
8. Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent contends that once the property had been entered as the property of the 8th respondent in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act, 1987, any person claiming rights over the said property would have to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 of the Act,1987 and such a person cannot insist upon an N.O.C being issued by the Endowment Authorities without a finding on this question by the Endowments Tribunal. He further contends that the interlocutory order sought by the Petitioners is the same as 6 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 the final order and such an application cannot be considered and relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Modiluft Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 65.
9. Sri P. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in view of the successive orders of the revenue authorities, the Civil Court as well as the erstwhile High Court of A.P, the title of the petitioners over the said land is now settled and no proceedings to the contrary are pending.
10. The fact of the matter, as it stands today, is that the orders by the Revenue authorities, the civil courts and the High Court are in favour of the Petitioners. There are no further proceedings pending today, except for the Writ Petition said to have been filed by the 8th Respondent and said to be pending in the SR stage since 2013. The claim of the 8th Respondent is dependent upon the entry of the property in the register maintained in respect of the 8 th Respondent under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987.
11. The effect of a property being entered in the Register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act 1987, is that the Institution can claim the benefit of Section 46 of the Endowments Act, 1987. Section 46 of the Endowment Act, 1987 has a deeming clause which holds that, until the contrary is established, it shall be presumed that the entries in the register made under section 43 are genuine. This would mean that a person aggrieved by an entry under section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987 can 7 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 either challenge the same before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 of the Endowments Act, 1987 or establish facts to the contrary. In the present case there is no dispute that the land in question originally belonged to the 8 th Respondent. The subsequent orders of the Revenue Authorities and the Civil Court upheld the transfer of this land by way of a Saswatha Patta to N. Kodanda Ramaiah and to his successors in title. These orders, which have become final, are sufficient, prima facie, to hold that the presumption under Section 46 of the Endowments Act, 1987 has been rebutted.
12. However, there remains the objection of Sri L. Ravichander, that a direction to grant NOC at this stage would amount to grant of final relief which has been prohibited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement cited above. The ratio of this judgement in Union of India v. Modiluft Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 65, is that an interlocutory order granting final reliefs without deciding the issues involved cannot be granted. The relevant passage reads as follows:
17. Seen from any angle, we think the High Court has erred in granting the impugned relief to the respondent which in our opinion is in the nature of a final relief which on facts and circumstances of this case, without deciding the issues involved in the writ petition, could not have been granted. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The NOC which is said to have been issued provisionally stands revoked. Payment made, if any, by the respondent would be given credit or adjusted in a manner considered appropriate by the High Court in the pending writ petition.
13. It is, prima facie, apparent that the 8th Respondent, except insisting that it is the owner of the property has no material to demonstrate that the Saswatha 8 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 patta is not valid or that the Ryotwari patta issued to the predecessors in title of the petitioners is not valid. The Petitioners and their predecessors in title are being driven from one litigation to another for the past fifty years and are entitled to some protection from the present attempt to deprive them of the benefits of their property. A direction to the Respondents to register the sale deeds executed by the Petitioners in relation to these lands with a rider that any such alienation shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition would be an interlocutory order which is not granting any final reliefs.
14. In the circumstances it would be appropriate to direct the Respondents 6 and 7 to register the documents presented by the Petitioners to alienate the Apartments built in the land in Survey No. 241/3, along with the appurtenant land, subject to the condition that any alienation would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. This would be equitable to both sides as the rights of the 8th Respondent, if any, are also protected. It would also be equitable to direct the Petitioners to include a clause in the sale deeds executed by the Petitioners stating that the said sale deeds shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
15. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Respondents 6 and 7 to register the documents presented by the Petitioners to alienate the Apartments built in the land in Sy.No.241/3A2 to 241/3A6 of Tiruchanuru Village, Tirupati 9 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 Rural Mandal and District along with the appurtenant land, provided a clause is included in the said deeds of alienation that the said sale deeds shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
It is further clarified that that any alienation would be subject to the result of this Writ Petition.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 21-10-2021 RJS 10 RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO I.A. No. 1 of 2021 AND Writ Petition No.17371 of 2021 Date : 21-10-2021 RJS