THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.40087 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc.No.L1/9574/2016 dated 05.07.2016 and Annexure-III under Sec.22(A) (1) (C) dated 01.09.2016 requesting the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to prohibit registration of documents over the property measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot No.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District U/Sec.22(A) (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not entertaining any document in relation to the property measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot No.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District as the same belongs to the 7th respondent temple as bad, illegal, contrary to the rules and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to entertain the documents presented for registration in respect of the land measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot No.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama Village and Maridal, Krishna District"
The petitioner purchased the subject land under registered sale deed. Respondent No.7 own and possessed land to an extent of Ac.10.04 cents in Sy.No.671 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District. As per the permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, the then Manager of the respondent No.7 temple has issued paper publication on 11.05.1977 for sale of the land belonging to respondent No.7 temple in public auction on 20.05.1977, 21.05.1977 and 22.05.1977 for the plots belonging to it, measuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½ cents out of total extent of Ac.10.04 cents in RS.No.671 of Nandigama village and Taluk, Krishna District. The vendor's vendor one D.Venkateswara Rao has participated in the auction and became highest bidder for plot No.1 and plot No.14 measuring Ac.0.10 cents each totalling Ac.0.20 cents. The Commissioner, Endowments Department has MSM,J wp_40087_2016 2 approved the auction vide D.Dis.No.A6/33843/1977 dated 16.12.1977.
The then manager of respondent No.7 temple has executed a registered sale deed on 05.01.1978 in favour of D.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Gopala Krishna Murthy, vide document No.36/1978. Thereafter, the said D.Venkateswara Rao sold Ac.0.20 cents in favour Bhagya Lakshmi vide document No.1931/1986 dated 25.09.1986. Later, the said Bhagya Lakshmi has sold the same to one Narayana Rao vide document No.2095/1986 dated 03.11.1986. Thereafter, the said K.Narayana Rao sold Ac.0.10 cents to one Padma vide document No.772/2008 dated 13.03.2008. The said Padma sold Ac.0.10 cents to the petitioner vide document No.3977/2015 dated 27.07.2015. Now petitioner is proposing to sell away the said property, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entertaining any documents under the guise of the Annexure-III issued by respondent No.6.
It is specifically contended that the endowments department having sold the property through public auction as per the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "Act No.30 of 1987"), now cannot turn round and include the said property in the list of properties held by the endowment institutions either religious institution or charitable institution. The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Sri Yellamma Ammavari Temple, vs. Sita Rama Raju (W.A.No.106 of 2014)" held that the Commissioner doesn't have any jurisdiction/authority to issue any such letter or proceedings requesting the Inspector General of the stamps and registration not MSM,J wp_40087_2016 3 to entertain any registration in respect of the properties held by the endowment institutions. As such, the list issued in Annexure-III submitted to the sub-registrar is bad and is liable to be set-aside in respect of the property, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
Respondent No.7 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District is notified under Section 6 (a) of the Act No.30 of 1987 and the same is under the administrative control of the Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No.7 admitted about issue of notification on 11.05.1977 for sale of the land measuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½ cents out of total extent of Ac.10.04 cents in R.S.No.671 of Nandigama Village and Taluk, Krishna District and the same were sold on 20.05.1977, 21.05.1977, 22.05.1977, 23.05.1977 and 24.05.1977..
Respondent No.7 also admitted that the bid was knocked down in favour of D.Venkateswara Rao for plot Nos.1 and 14 for an extent of Ac.0.10 cents each totalling Ac.0.20 cents for an amount of Rs.3,450/- and Rs.3,000/-, totalling Rs.6,450/-. The Commissioner, Endowments Department vide proceedings dated 16.12.1977 has approved the auction, so also execution of registered sale deed in favour of highest bidder.
The specific contention of respondent No.7 is that due to oversight the property measuring Ac.0.20 cents sold in public auction to D.Venkateswara Rao was included in the list communicated to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps MSM,J wp_40087_2016 4 and Registration dated 05.07.2016, requested to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in "Mopuri Hemavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.23856 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021)". On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the petitioner requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 vehemently contended that no direction can be issued against the official respondents as claimed by the petitioner and that the subject property was endowment property belonging to the temple, in such case, the specific procedure laid down in "Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari v. State of Andhra Pradesh1" is to be followed, but instead of following such procedure, the petitioner approached this Court. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 requested to dismiss the writ petition relying on the judgment of this Court passed in "Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.9686 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021)".
It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.7 owned and possessed land to an extent of Ac.10.04 cents in Sy.No.671 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District. As per the permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, the then Manager of the respondent No.7 temple has issued paper publication on 11.05.1977 for sale of the land belonging to respondent No.7 1 2016 (1) ALT 550 MSM,J wp_40087_2016 5 temple in public auction on 20.05.1977, 21.05.1977 and 22.05.1977 for the plots belonging to it, measuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½ cents out of total extent of Ac.10.04 cents in RS.No.671 of Nandigama village and Taluk, Krishna District. The vendor's vendor one D.Venkateswara Rao has participated in the auction and became highest bidder for plot No.1 and plot No.14 measuring Ac.0.10 cents each totalling Ac.0.20 cents. The Commissioner, Endowments Department has approved the auction vide D.Dis.No.A6/33843/1977 dated 16.12.1977.
It is also not in dispute that the then manager of respondent No.7 temple has executed a registered sale deed on 05.01.1978 in favour of D.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Gopala Krishna Murthy, vide document No.36/1978. Thereafter, the said D.Venkateswara Rao sold Ac.0.20 cents in favour Bhagya Lakshmi vide document No.1931/1986 dated 25.09.1986. Later, the said Bhagya Lakshmi has sold the same to one Narayana Rao vide document No.2095/1986 dated 03.11.1986. Thereafter, the said K.Narayana Rao sold Ac.0.10 cents to one Padma vide document No.772/2008 dated 13.03.2008. The said Padma sold Ac.0.10 cents to the petitioner vide document No.3977/2015 dated 27.07.2015. Now petitioner is proposing to sell away the said property, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entertaining any documents under the guise of the Annexure-III issued by respondent No.6.
Padma became the owner of the subject property as on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The purchase of the petitioner is also not in dispute and when the petitioner intend to sell the property, approached the Sub-Registrar, he informed that an intimation was sent to the District Registrar by MSM,J wp_40087_2016 6 the Commissioner of Endowments, respondent No.5 prohibiting registration of any document in respect of the subject property as it is included in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. On the basis of such intimation given by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 refused to receive the document and register the same.
When the property belongs to Endowments or Charitable Institution, the sale of the same is permitted subject to following the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of the Act No.30 of 1987, which prescribes certain procedure i.e. calling for objections from the persons interested etc., and sale of immovable property in the open auction and confirmation of sale by Commissioner of Endowments.
While adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of the Act No.30 of 1987, respondent No.7 issued paper publication on 11.05.1977 for sale of the land belongs to respondent No.7 temple in public auction from 20.05.1977 to 24.05.1977 for the plots admeasuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½ cents out of total extetn of Ac.10.04 cents in R.S.No.671 of Nandigama Village and Taluk, Krishna District. Issue of notification is in compliance of Section 80 of the Act No.30 of 1987.
It is an admitted fact that D.Venkateswara Rao has participated in the auction and became the highest bidder for plot Nos.1 and 14 for an extent of Ac.0.10 cents each. Respondent No.7 also admitted inclusion of subject property in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, but it is due to oversight as averred in paragraph No.7 of the counter filed by respondent No.7. The reason for inclusion of subject MSM,J wp_40087_2016 7 property in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 is a mistake or oversight of respondent No.5 - the Commissioner, Endowments Department. When once the subject property was included in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 due to oversight, respondent No.5 ought to have taken steps to delete the same from the prohibitory properties list, but simply requested this Court to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
In similar circumstances, this Court in "Mopuri Hemavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.23856 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021) issued a direction to the Sub-Registrar therein to receive the sale deed that may be presented by the petitioner and register the same subject to complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The facts of the above judgment are identical to the present facts of the case.
Learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in "Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.9686 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021)". In the said judgment, the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein i.e. inclusion of the property of the petitioner therein was declared as illegal and arbitrary, consequently directed the respondents to delete the property from the list of prohibited properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in compliance of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four weeks from today and communicate the same to Respondent No.5 therein. On MSM,J wp_40087_2016 8 receipt of communication, the Respondent No.5-Sub-Registrar is directed to receive, process and register the document presented for registration pertaining to the subject land, subject to complying the legal formalities under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908.
Even as per the judgment of this Court in "Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.9686 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021)", relied on by the learned standing counsel for respondent No.7, this Court declared the action of the official respondents therein as illegal and arbitrary. If the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, keeping in view, the admission made by respondent No.7 in paragraph No.7 of the counter, the very inclusion of subject property in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and arbitrary since the property is already sold in the public auction strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of the Act No.30 of 1987 and the same was approved by respondent No.5 vide D.Dis.No.A6/33843/1977 dated 16.12.1977. Hence, I find no substance in the contention urged by the learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 as the admission made by respondent No.7 in the counter is sufficient to reject the contention of learned standing counsel for respondent No.7. Accordingly, the contention of the learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 is rejected.
In view of my foregoing discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
MSM,J wp_40087_2016 9 In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc.No.L1/9574/2016 dated 05.07.2016 and Annexure-III under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 dated 01.09.2016 requesting the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Andhra Pradesh, to prohibit registration of documents pertaining to the subject property measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot Nos.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District Under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not entertaining any document in relation to the property measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot Nos.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District as the same belongs to respondent No.7 temple as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, respondent No.5 is directed to delete the subject property from the list of prohibited properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in compliance of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four weeks from today and communicate the same to respondent No.4. On receipt of communication, respondent No.4 - Sub-Registrar is directed to receive, process and register the document presented for registration pertaining to the subject property, subject to complying the legal formalities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 19.04.2022 Ksp