THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15485 of 2010
ORDER:-
The petitioners claim ownership of Ac.1.74 cents of land
in R.S.No.272/1 of Dhawaleswaram Village, East Godavari
District. This land is said to be part of a fish tank excavated
by the petitioners over this piece of land along with the
neighbouring extents of land which are owned by the
petitioner. It is stated that the fish tank had been excavated
over an extent of Ac.4.50 cents including the aforesaid Ac.1.74
cents. The petitioners submit that the title of this land can be
traced to one Katakam family of Rajahmundry. It is stated that
one Katakam Seethaiah sold the land to one Battula Veerraju,
by way of a Registered Deed of Sale dated 01.06.1949. Sri
Battula Veerraju, in turn, sold this land by way of a Registered
Deed of Sale dated 22.08.1953 to Grandhi Sriramulu, who had
thereupon sold this land to Akula Gurranna, by way of a
registered deed of sale dated 13.06.1959. Thereafter, this
property was purchased by the 1st petitioner from the Akula
family, by way of a Registered Deed of Sale dated 19.05.1980.
2. At that stage, the 3rd respondent had initiated
O.A.No.171 of 1994 under Section 83 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987) before the 1st respondent, who had allowed the said O.A. holding that the land belonged 2 RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010 to the 3rd respondent-temple and directed the 1st petitioner to handover the said land to the 3rd respondent.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 13.03.2007, the 1st petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.
4. The 1st petitioner had passed away during the pendency of the writ petition and the 2nd petitioner was impleaded as his legal representative.
5. Sri W.B.Srinivas learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that the order under challenge is a non speaking order has no reasons being set out in the said order. He would draw the attention of this Court to the contents of the impugned order dated 13.03.2007, to contend that the 1st respondent after stating that the order was being passed in consideration of the material record placed before him, simply held that the 1st petitioner was an encroacher who was in occupation of the premises without any valid lease and directed the petitioner to remove his encroachment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, and hand over the land to the 3rd respondent, failing which, action would be taken against the 1st petitioner.
6. Sri W.B.Srinivas learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the said order did not consider any of the material placed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Going to the question of whether the 3rd 3 RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010 respondent-temple had any title to the property, Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to Ex.P.11, filed into this court, which is the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.212 of 1937 passed on 10.03.1941 by the District Munsif, Rajahmundry. It is said that this Judgment, to which the 3rd respondent temple was a party, confirmed the title of Sri Katakam @ Ramachandrapurapu Seethaiah over the aforesaid property. He submits that this is the same Seethaiah from whom title is traced by the Petitioners.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments draws the attention of this Court to Ex.A.7 dated 19.01.2003 in which, the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the 1st respondent stating that the 1st petitioner had been cheated into purchasing the said land and that the 1st petitioner was willing to repurchase the said land from the 3rd respondent.
8. The learned Government Pleader would submit that in view of the above said letter which has been mentioned in the order, the 1st respondent had held that the land belonged to the 3rd respondent-temple and that the petitioner was an encroacher. She submits that in view of this finding, it cannot be said that there were no reasons given by the 1st respondent in the impugned order.
4
RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010
9. Sri W.B.Srinivas learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in reply to this contention, submits that the said letter had been drafted in order to buy peace and not as an admission of law of title over the land. He submits that in view of the decision of the District Munsif, Rajahmundry in the year 1941, the 3rd respondent-temple had lost title to the property and the same will not revive on a mere admission of the petitioners herein.
10. The petitioners rely on the Judgment of the District Munsif, Rajahmundry passed in the year 1941, to claim that the 3rd respondent-temple had lost its title and right over the property. The 3rd respondent relies upon the entries made in the register which shows that this property is entered in the register and also the revenue records which show that the temple is the owner of the land. It appears that the petitioners had not placed the Judgment of the District Munsif before the 1st respondent.
11. The petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition on the ground that the impugned order of the 1st respondent does not contain any reasons and as such is a violation of principles of natural justice, which requires to be set aside by this Court. A perusal of the order would show that the 1st respondent recorded various facts, including the contents of Ex.A.7 letter and the admission of the petitioner that he had sent that letter. However, the 1st Respondent has not chosen to discuss 5 RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010 any of this material and simply gave a finding of fact. The order does not appear to contain any reasons, except to say that the 1st Respondent considered all the facts and material. Consequently, it must be held that principles of natural justice have been breached.
12. In these circumstances, to ensure that a proper decision is taken in the matter, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter. As the power to conduct such enquiries has now been withdrawn from the Deputy Commissioners and entrusted to the Endowment Tribunal, under Section 87 of the Endowments Act, 1987, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Endowment Tribunal to consider the entire case after giving an opportunity of hearing and of adducing evidence to the petitioners herein.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order No.85 of 2007 JDL dated 13.03.2007 of the 1st respondent i.e., Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.171 of 1994 and the proceedings are remanded to the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, for a fresh enquiry and decision, after due notice and opportunity being given to the 2nd Petitioner.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 09.02.2022 RJS 6 RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15485 of 2010 Date : 09.02.2022 RJS