Chintalapudi Uma Maheswara Rao, vs The Principal Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 2801 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                         W.P.No.11323 of 2021

ORDER:

The tank, known as the 'Dasabandham' tank spread over an extent

of Ac.193.78 cents in Sy.No.718, situated in Kunduru Village,

Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, is the subject matter of the

present writ petition. The petitioner, who is said to be a permanent

resident of Kunduru Village, states that the said Dasabandham tank was

excavated for the purpose of providing source of irrigation for the

agricultural lands around the area and for providing water for cattle and

people in the villages of Mamillapalli, Paritalavaripalem and Kunduru. The

petitioner also states that Inam land of Ac.14.22 cents in R.S.No.306, 398

and 432 of Kunduru Village, was granted in favour of some

Dasabandhamdars for maintenance of the said tank. This tank was

registered as an institution under Section 6(c) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987

(for short 'the Act') by way of publication in A.P. Gazette on

17.03.1988. Subsequently, in the year 1995 a trust board was

constituted by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 27.11.1995

for a period of one year. The Dasabandhamdars, aggrieved by the

publication dated 17.03.1988 and the constitution of trust board by

proceedings dated 27.11.1995, had approached the erstwhile High Court

of A.P. by way of W.P.No.15051 of 1996 assailing the said proceedings.

This writ petition, along with certain other writ petitions filed by the third

persons, in W.P.Nos.9141, 6543 of 1990 and 5592 of 1996 wherein the

auction of fishing rights were challenged, were all taken up together and

disposed of by a common order dated 19.04.1999. The common High 2 RRR,J.

W.P.No.11323 of 2021

Court of A.P., in the said common order held that the said tank was

neither a charitable institution nor an endowment and would not amount

to a public trust and allowed the writ petitions. These orders were

challenged in a writ appeal bearing W.A.No.793 of 1999 and the same

came to be allowed by order dated 15.09.2008 wherein liberty was

granted to the parties in the said proceedings to approach the 2 nd

respondent under Section 87 of the Act to redress their grievances and for

deciding as to the status of the tank as well as the status of the parties to

the litigation. S.L.P.(Civil).No.29456 of 2008 filed before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court against the orders in the writ appeal is pending as Civil

Appeal No.7348 of 2008.

2. The case of the petitioner is that as no stay has been

granted in Civil Appeal No.7348 of 2008, it would be open to the parties to

approach the 2nd respondent to conduct an independent enquiry into the

issue and to protect the Dasabandham tank, in as much as the 6th

respondent is auctioning the fishing rights of the said tank and making

huge amounts of money. It is the case of the petitioner that these

auctions are causing a public nuisance, as the persons obtaining leasehold

rights are polluting the tank in the name of growing fish, which is causing

huge ecological damage and also resulting in the ayacutdars not being

permitted to utilise the tank, as a source of irrigation apart from the

villagers of the three villages being unable to obtain drinking water from

the tank.

3. The 6th respondent has filed a counter stating that the said

tank is a public tank built on Government land. The 6th respondent

submits that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011, the lands

belonging to the Gram Panchayat including all public water sources, 3 RRR,J.

W.P.No.11323 of 2021

springs, reservoirs etc., would vest with the Gram Panchayat, and as such,

the 6th respondent should be treated as the owner of the said

Dasabandham tank, and consequently, the 6th respondent would be

entitled to auction the leasehold rights of the said tank.

4. The 6th respondent, replying to the allegations in the writ

petition, submits that no chemicals are being put into the tank for

increasing the fish growth. The 6th respondent further submits that the

petitioners had never complained with regard to non-permitting of cattle

and villagers of the three villages from taking water from the tank for

drinking purposes and also no complaint was made to the effect that the

adjoining ayacutdars are not being permitted to use the water for

cultivating their lands.

5. The 6th respondent would also submit that in the year 2019

an auction was conducted for the said tank wherein the highest bid

obtained was Rs.82,05,000/-. It is further submitted that some of the

Dasabandhamdars had filed W.P.No.2042 of 2019 against the auction of

the tank in the year 2019 and the lease period given under the said

auction is also to be completed now. In the circumstances, the present

writ petition does not set out any new facts which require any interference

by this Court at this stage.

6. Sri G.R. Sudhakar, appearing for Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy,

learned counsel for the 6th respondent would rely upon a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and Ors., v. State of Punjab 4 RRR,J.

W.P.No.11323 of 2021

and Ors.,1 to contend that all the public utility lands including ponds and

reservoirs would vest with the Gram Panchayat alone.

Consideration of the Court:

7. It is true that the public tanks and reservoirs situated within

the limits of a Gram Panchayats would ordinarily vest in the Gram

Panchayats. However, the question that arises in the present case is -

whether the said tank falls within the ambit of the Endowment Act, and in

the event of such a situation whether it would be the endowment

department, which would be required to maintain and manage the tank,

or whether the tank would still vest with the 6th respondent Gram

Panchayat.

8. The parties on either side have filed counter affidavits and

produced various records available with the Revenue Department in

support of their rival contentions. A perusal of these records does not

show whether the tank was originally excavated in private land or in

Government land. As submitted by the petitioner, the said question is an

issue which needs to be settled under the provisions of Section 87 of the

Act. As the power under Section 87 of the Act has now been conferred on

the Endowments Tribunal, it would be appropriate to leave it open to the

parties to approach the Endowments Tribunal for a decision in this matter.

9. The pendency of the civil appeal before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court would not preclude such a course of action as any decision

taken by the Endowments Tribunal, pending the disposal of the said civil

(2011) 11 SCC 396

5 RRR,J.

W.P.No.11323 of 2021

appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would have to abide by the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter.

10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of,

leaving it open to the parties in the present writ petition as well as the

parties in the original Writ Appeal No.793 of 1999 to approach the Andhra

Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, under Section 87 of the Act for a decision

on the question of whether the subject tank is an endowment property,

the management of which has to be regulated under the A.P.Endowments

Act, 1987 or whether the said tank should be treated as a public tank

which would vest with the 6th respondent Grampanchayat.

11. It is also clarified that the income obtained from the auction

of the leasehold rights of the fishing rights in the said tank would also

abide by the decision of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, subject to any

decision that would be taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

pending civil appeal.

12. As far as, the question of infringement of the rights of

persons in these three villages by prohibiting them for drawing the water

for drinking purposes or irrigation purposes is concerned, no material has

been placed before this Court to make out such a case except the

pleadings in the writ petition which has been promptly denied by the 6th

respondent in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. However,

the 6th respondent does not deny that the villagers in the area have such

rights. As such, no orders can be passed on this issue at this stage, except

to direct that such rights, which have not been disputed by the 6th

respondent, shall be protected.

                                       6                                 RRR,J.
                                                          W.P.No.11323 of 2021

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                               ________________________
                                               R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

03rd August, 2021
Js/RJS
                             7                          RRR,J.
                                         W.P.No.11323 of 2021




         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




                  W.P.No.11323 of 2021




                    03rd August, 2021
Js/RJS