Darru Paaramma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3899 AP

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.2129 of 2021

ORDER:

The 1st petitioner claims ownership and title over

Ac.2.60; the 2nd petitioner claims ownership and title over

Ac.2.61 cents; and the 3rd petitioner claims ownership and

possession over Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.40/2 of Panukuvalsa

Village, Palkonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. The 1st petitioner

claims ownership on the ground that her late husband had been

assigned the said land under file No.528/85,A dated

14.12.1985; the 2nd petitioner claims ownership on the ground

that his brother Sri. D.Jesudas, was allotted the said land under

file No.528/85, A, dated 14.12.1985; and the 3rd petitioner

claims ownership and possession on the ground that his father

Sri D.Surayya was allotted the land under file No.528/85,A,

dated 14.12.1985.

2. It is case of the petitioners that their names were

mutated in Form-1(B) (ROR) and Adangal/Pahani and the

Tahsildar had also issued pattadar, pass books and

adangal/pahani on 24.01.2021, which shows the petitioners as

pattadars. The petitioners further contend that the Executive

Officer of 4th respondent has sent a notice vide letter

No.48/2021, dated 20.01.2021 proposing to conduct the public

auction of lease hold rights of this land on the ground that the

said land belongs to Sri Bevara Venugopala Naidu Annasatram,

which is not permissible as the land belongs to the petitioners

3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The

case of the 4th respondent is that the 4th respondent which was

published under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act, 1987 [for the short "the Endowments Act"] is the owner to

an extent of Ac.7.81 cents in Sy.No.40/2 and the Mandal

Revenue Officer had issued a pattadar passbook as well as a

title deed bearing No.514071 in the name of the 4th respondent-

satram. As far as the claim of the petitioners is concerned, the

said claim it said to be based on the proceedings in file

No.528/85, dated 14.12.1985, which only give temporary pattas

and the said pattas cannot be treated either as ownership

document or creating any title in favour of the petitioners. The

4th respondent would also state that the lease hold rights of this

land had been auctioned on 26.03.2015, wherein the 2nd

petitioner had participated in the public auction and had

secured lease hold rights of the subject property for the period

i.e., 2015-2018 and the 3rd petitioner had participated in the

public auction of the lease hold rights of this land conducted on

28.05.2018 and had been in possession of the land as the lessee

on payment of maktha for which receipt has also been issued.

4. The 4th respondent relies upon the entries made in

the register maintained by the 4th respondent under Section 43

of the Endowments Act, wherein this land has also been shown

as the land owned by the 4th respondent-satram.

5. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel

appearing for the 4th respondent would rely upon the Judgment

of the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad,

for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in

case of Vinjamuri Rajagopalachariy Vs. Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others1 to submit that

there is a presumption in favour of the 4th respondent.

6. The petitioners had filed a reply to this counter. In

the reply it is stated that the issue of ownership of the land had

gone up before the appellate authority, who had passed an order

dated.11.08.2021 in file.No.RDOPLK-LANDOROR(ROR)/17/2021-

SA, wherein the appeal of the 4th respondent on this issue was

rejected. The petitioners would also contend that the revenue

records clearly show that the land in question was D-patta land

and as such the 4th respondent-satram is not the owner. The

petitioners did not specifically deny the allegations made in the

counter affidavit that they had participated in the auction of the

lease hold rights earlier. However, there is a general denial of all

the averments in the counter affidavit. It is also stated that

permanent pattas are said to have been given to the petitioners.

7. As can be seen from the above, there are

complicated issues of fact relating to title and ownership of

these lands and the same cannot be adjudicated by this court

under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. These are issues

2016 (2) ALD 236

and disputes which can be resolved by the Endowments

Tribunal, Amaravati, under Section 87 of the Endowments Act.

8. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the

Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati for a resolution as to whether

the said land belong to the 4th respondent-satram or to the

petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. To enable the petitioners to avail of the alternative

remedy, the interim directions granted earlier shall be extended

for a further period of six weeks.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

04.10.2021 Note:

CC in two days B/o. (BSM)

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.2129 of 2021

04-10-2021

Note:

CC in two days B/o.

BSM