Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N Varada Rajulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 February, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19856 of 2020
ORDER:-
The petitioners herein came to be in possession of Ac.0.54
cents of and in Sy.No.13 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rual
Mandal, Chittor District on the basis of an Unregistered Deed of
Sale dated 17.02.2018 having purchased the same from one
M/s.Weaker Section Mutt Land Residents Association. The said
Association is said to have executed the Unregistered Sale
Deed on the basis of a Power of Attorney dated 11.07.2016 said
to have been given by members of the "Kochi" family. The
petitioners have now approached this Court by way of this writ
petition on the ground that the 3rd respondent- Mutt is seeking
to dispossess them from their lands with the assistance of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same is not permissible. The
petitioners rely upon the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to
contend that even if the petitioners are to be treated as
encroachers, they would have to be evicted in accordance with
law and procedure set out in the Endowments Act, 1987 and the
3rd respondent cannot unilaterally and forcibly dispossess the
petitioners without following due process of law.
2. The 3rd respondent has filed its counter wherein it is
stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the land and
as such, the complaint against the 3rd respondent does not have
any basis. Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd
respondent would submit that this land has been the subject
matter of various litigations including W.P.No.3849 of 2011 and
3128 of 2011 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh
as well as certain litigations before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an
Order dated 12.05.2016 in S.L.P.No.8917 of 2016, had directed
that registration of lands in this survey number could be done
by specifically stating in the document that the registration
would be subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave
Petitions. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its
Order dated 06.12.2017 had directed that registration made
shall be subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition,
however, there shall be no subsequent transfer in any manner
whatsoever without permission from the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
3. Sri Bobbili Srinivas learned Standing Counsel for 3rd
respondent would rely upon these directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to submit that the Power of Attorney given to the
Association by the members of the "Kochi" family was registered
after recording the specific observation that the registration of
the Power of Attorney is subject to the result of Special
Litigation Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
He submits that the subsequent document which is the
unregistered Deed of Sale dated 17.02.2018, cannot be looked
into for two reasons. Firstly, this document is in violation of the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and secondly, this
document is an Unregistered Document which cannot be looked
into by this Court on account of the prohibition under Section
49 of the Registration Act.
4. This Court has to accept the contention of
Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd
respondent that this Court cannot look into this Unregistered
Deed of Sale on both grounds. In the circumstances, the
possession of the petitioners over the Ac.0.54 cents of land in
Sy.No.13 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittor
District, is not demonstrated before this Court.
5. However, the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in his Judgment dated
28.04.2011 in W.P.No.3849 of 2011 and 3128 of 2011 had
noticed the fact that the members of the Association had been
given illegal electricity connections, which have subsequently
been disconnected. The learned Single Judge had also noticed
the Judgment of the civil Court in O.S.No.115 of 1971, wherein
it was clearly held that Mutt was not in possession of these
lands.
6. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is
dismissed while observing that any action sought to be taken by
the 3rd respondent for recovery of possession of the land will
have to be in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Charitable
and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ
petition, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 23-02-2021
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19856 of 2020
Date : 23-02-2021
RJS
