Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chinthabathuni Veeraiah Died vs Sri Seetharamanjaneeya Swamy Vari ... on 12 November, 2024
APHC010280122010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3873/2010
Between:
1. CHINTHABATHUNI VEERAIAH [DIED], SUBN-IVISION NO. IV, O & M
DN NO. V, HMWSSB, HYDERABAD.
2. CHINTHABATHUNI SANTHA KUMARI, W/O.VEERAIAH
R/O.D.NO.104/B1, TYPE-1, RAILWAY QUARTERS, BAPATLA.
3. CHINTHABATHUNI DAYANANDA SAGAR, S/O.VEERAIAH
R/O.D.NO.104/B1, TYPE-1, RAILWAY QUARTERS, BAPATLA.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SRI SEETHARAMANJANEEYA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, rep by
its Managing Trustee: Guntur Hema Sundara Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy
R/o.Pathareddy Palem Village, chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRPMP 5175 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 16.07.200 passed
in ATA No.17/2009 on the file of Spl Judge, Tenancy Appellate Tribunal
[Prl.District Judge] Guntur, pending disposal of the CRP
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATESWARLU POSANI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. N MOHAN KRISHNA
The Court made the following:
::ORDER:
:
The respondents (tenants) in A.T.C.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur filed the above revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the judgment dated 16.07.2010 passed in A.T.A.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Special Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur in reversing the order dated 15.09.2009 in A.T.C.No.25 of 2006.
2. Heard Sri M.Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Posani. None appeared for the respondent.
3. Sri Seetharamanjaneeya Swamy Vari Devasthanam, represented by its Managing Trustee-Guntur respondent herein filed A.T.C.No.25 of 2006 under Section 13(A) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 seeking eviction of 1st respondent. Pending A.T.C., the 1st respondent died and respondents 2 and 3 were added by an order dated 06.08.2009 in I.A.No.222 of 2009.
4. The case of the petitioner in A.T.C.No.25 of 2006, in brief, is that the petitioner temple has an extent of Ac.13.08 cents in different demarcations. The 1st respondent is the tenant of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in D.No.908 and 911/1 and 2. The agreement is oral. The agreed maktha is 12 ½ bags of paddy per acre. The payment of maktha in cash. Whenever the maktha is paid, the petitioner temple used to issue receipts. The 1st respondent has been cultivating the land for more than 15 years and is not regular in paying the maktha. The 1st respondent paid the maktha up to the year 2003-2004 and failed to pay the maktha despite repeated demands. A legal notice, dated 07.07.2006 was issued to the 1st respondent demanding to pay the maktha for the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The 1st respondent acknowledged the notice and issued a reply with false conditions.
5. The 1st respondent filed a counter. It was contended, inter-alia, that the Managing Trustee leased out the temple land to his forefathers and after their death respondent came into possession of the petition schedule property and has been cultivating the land. The respondent paid the maktha for the years 2004-2005 and there is no default. The person who signed the petition has no right to sign it. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the A.T.C.
6. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.
7. The Lower Tribunal held that P.W.1 is not the Trustee of the temple and failed to prove nonpayment of the maktha by the respondent. The lower Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the default on the part of the respondent and eventually dismissed the petition by an order dated 15.09.2009.
8. Against the said order the temple represented by its Managing Trustee filed A.T.A.No.17 of 2009. The appellate authority concluded that the temple is a private endowment and hence the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 would be applicable. The appellate authority also holds that P.W.1 is competent to sign the petition. The appellate court recorded the finding that 1st respondent failed to pay the maktha for the agricultural years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The appellate Court allowed the petition and ordered the eviction of the respondents from the petition scheduled properties within three months from the date of judgment.
9. The revision was admitted on 04.02.2011 and an interim stay was granted in C.R.P.(MP).No.5175 of 2010. The above revision was listed on several occasions for hearing. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent.
10. Sri M.Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner temple is a public institution and hence provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 would not apply. Learned counsel would also contend that by amendment to Section 18 of the Tenancy Act, by adding clause F, with effect from 26.11.2022 the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 would not apply to the Hindu Religious institutions and endowments as defined by provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Learned counsel would also submit that petitioners have been paid the maktha without any default.
11. The point for consideration is:
Whether the respondent temple is a Religious and Charitable Institution as per Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987? If so, whether the Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a tenancy case under Section 13(A) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956?
12. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that the other tenants who suffered an order of eviction filed C.R.P.Nos.4755 and 4756 of 2009 against the respondent temple herein. As seen from the facts narrated in para-4 of the order the institution in C.R.P.Nos.4755 and 4756 of 2009 and the institution in the present revision is the same. Learned Single Judge in the above revision petitions concluded that because of Sec 18(1) (F) of the Tenancy Act, the tenancy cases filed by the institutions before the Tribunal after the year 2002 are not maintainable. Eventually, the revisions were allowed on 28.07.2016.
13. Thus, a learned single judge of the composite High Court, in respect of the respondent temple concluded that the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act does not apply to the lands owned by it. No material is placed before this Court, the aforementioned orders were set aside. In the absence of any information, this Court is of the considered opinion that the A.T.C. filed by the respondent on the file of the Tenancy Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur claiming default for the years 2004-2005 is not maintainable.
14. In Sri Someswara Swami Vari Temple, Nadigam, Settenapalli, Guntur District v. Degala Koteswara Rao and others 1, a learned single judge of composite High Court held that the proceedings initiated by the respondent temple under the Tenancy Act are not maintainable and the Special Officer has entertained the tenancy cases filed by the respondents without any authority of law and jurisdiction and the appellate Court also exercised the power without any jurisdictional authority under the said Act. Even according to the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the lands belonging to the temple are exempted. By virtue of the above clause F to 18(1) of A.P.Tenancy Act, the provisions of Tenancy Act shall not apply to any agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment as defined by the provisions of Endowment Act. Thus, the tenancy case initiated by the respondent against the petitioner is not maintainable.
15. In Zuari Cement Limited v. Regiional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court 1 2003 (4) ALT 632 2 (2015) 7 SCC 690 held that neither the order of the High Court nor the act of the respondent Corporation subjecting itself to the jurisdiction of ESI Court, which did not have, would confer jurisdiction upon ESI Court to determine the question of grant and validity of exemption from the operation of ESI Court as powers are vested with appropriate Government and High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India respectively. Given the law declared by the Apex Court, the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction in the considered opinion of this Court can be raised at any time.
16. Given the discussion supra, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 16.06.2010 in A.T.A.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Special Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur. This Court holds that the tenancy case filed by the respondent temple is not maintainable. This order will not preclude the authorities of the temple from initiating necessary proceedings, in case of any cause of action arises before an appropriate Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 12.11.2024 SNI 29 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3873/2010 Dated: 12.11.2024 SNI