Sri. Mandapati Ramalingeswara ... vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1515 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.5874 of 2021

ORDER:

About Ac.6.24 cents of land in Sy.No.260/2A of Bondada

Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District was granted as

"Kalavanthulu Inam" (Devadasi Inam) by the Inam

Commissioner vide proceedings dated 20.01.1932 in favour of

three ladies. After obtaining the Inam, it appears that these

three persons had sold away the land. Thereafter, the land was

transferred from time to time by registered deeds of sale with the

petitioner's father being the last purchaser of the land and the

petitioner obtained the said property under a family partition.

2. The petitioner sought issuance of a pattadar

passbook. At that stage, the 4th respondent-temple raised

objections before the 5th respondent regarding the issuance of

such a pattadar pass book. The 5th respondent after

considering all the contentions raised by both sides directed

that the temple should approach the Endowment Tribunal

under Section 87 of the Endowment Act, 1987 to resolve the

dispute as to ownership of the property.

3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, in pursuance of this

direction, had approached the A.P. Endowment Tribunal by way

of O.A.No.502 of 2020 for eviction of the petitioner on the

ground that he is an encroacher.

4. Aggrieved by the said proceeding, the petitioner has

now approached this Court by way of a Writ of Mandamus

seeking a direction that the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in

filing O.A.No.502 of 2020 before the A.P.Endowment Tribunal

under Section 83 of the Endowment Act, 1987 is violative and

Contrary to the Judgment of the High Court dated 29.11.2019

in W.P.No.39704 and 42318 of 2017 and for a consequent stay

of all further proceedings in O.A.No.502 of 2020.

5. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the present Inam was an

enfranchised Inam, which would stand in the same position as a

ryotwari lands under B.S.O.53 and as such, the sale of the land

by the initial assignees is in order and cannot be faulted. He

would further submit that the petitioner cannot treated as an

encroacher and the application should have been filed under

Section 87 of the Endowment Act, 1987 as directed by the

authority. He would further submit that the Judgment of this

Court in W.P.No.39704 and 42318 of 2017 clearly held that the

appropriate authority for deciding this issue would be the

revenue authorities and in view of the said finding, the present

application before the Tribunal would not be permissible.

6. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner would also submit that in the case of enfranchised

Inam, the title passes completely and as such neither revenue

authorities nor Endowment Tribunal would have jurisdiction

over the matter.

7. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for 4th respondent temple would submit that the

Endowment Tribunal would be the appropriate Forum for

deciding this issue as it is the Tribunal which is given sole

authority under Section 87 of the Endowment Act to decide

such an issue. He would further submit that Board Standing

Orders cannot overrule or over ride the statutory provisions of

the Endowment Act, 1987 or the Inam Abolition Act.

8. The writ petition seeks to stay further proceedings

before the Endowment Tribunal. In such circumstances, the

writ would have to be writ of prohibition and not a writ of

Mandamus. Be that as it may, the contention that the issues

relating to title cannot be considered at all if it is an

enfranchised Inam cannot be accepted as any dispute raised in

this matter would have to be decided by an appropriate Tribunal

or authority. The 4th respondent temple cannot be deprived the

right of approaching any authority at all on the ground that the

property is an enfranchised Inam. It is another matter that the

said forum can always reject the contentions raised by the

litigant. In the present case, the question of whether the Inam

is an enfranchised Inam which creates an absolute right and

title in the property in favour of the Inamdar is itself a question

that needs to be considered. This issue would arise in view of

the fact that the Inam Abolition Act and the Endowment Act,

1987 would have to be considered before the decision can be

taken in the matter. It would also have to be noticed that the

claim of the petitioner is based on the Board Standing Orders.

In the present case, there is also a question as to the effect of

the abolition of such Inams and on the question of whether it

would be the temple as the Inamdar which would be entitled for

ryotwari patta or whether a enfranchised service Inamdar would

fall outside the ambit of the Inam Abolition Act on the ground

that the said Inam creates an absolute title in favour of the

Inamdar.

9. All these questions of fact and law would require a

proper hearing before an appropriate forum. In these

circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can agitate

all these issues and any other issue that the petitioner deems fit

before the Endowment Tribunal.

10. The contention of the learned counsel that

respondents 3 and 4 should have approached the Tribunal

under Section 87 and not under Section 83 of the Endowment

Act, 1987 is also an issue which can be considered by the

Tribunal. Infact Section 87 of the Endowment Act sets out the

matters in which the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction. Section

83 is a species of the disputes that can be raised under Section

87 of the Endowment Act. In any event it is settled law that a

mention of incorrect provision of law does not make the entire

exercise a futile exercise and the authority would be entitled to

source its power from the appropriate provision of law.

11. He would also further submit that as the petitioner

has approached this Court and the next date of hearing is fixed

as 19.03.2021, the Endowment Tribunal shall permit further

reasonable time to the petitioner to make his submissions and

for filing his pleadings before the Tribunal.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it

open to the petitioner to raise all issues considered appropriate

before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

15.03.2021

Note:

Furnish CC by tomorrow.

B/o RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.5874 of 2021

15.03.2021

RJS