M. Suguna, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4135 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                       I.A. No. 1 of 2021
                                In
                 Writ Petition No.17371 of 2021

ORDER:-


      The petitioners 1 to 6 claim to be the absolute owners and

possessors of different extents of land aggregating to Ac. 1.77

cents in Sy.No.241/3A2 to 241/3A6 of Tiruchanuru Village,

Tirupati Rural Mandal, District and are assailing the correctness

of   the      proceedings    of    the      2nd    respondent    in

D.Dis.No.M1/19027(35)/4/2021 dated 15.07.2021, under

which, the 2nd respondent refused to issue a No Objection

Certificate (NOC) to the petitioners.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that certain land in

Sy.No.241/3 of Tirupati had belonged to Sri Hathiramji Mutt,

which is arrayed as 8th respondent in the present writ petition.

This Mutt is said to have issued a Saswatha Patta, on

21.11.1940, to one Sri N.Kodanda Ramaiah, on the basis of

which, the said person became the owner of the land.

Thereafter, about two acres of land in survey No. 241 was

alienated by Sri N. Kodanda Ramaiah to two brothers Sri V.

Veerappa and Sri V. Gopalakrishnaiah, in 1970 and 1971, by

way of registered deeds of sale. Subsequently, this land was

transferred from person to person by way of a Registered Deeds

of Sale with the petitioners becoming owners of Ac. 1.77 cents of

land by way of Registered Deeds of Sale executed in their favour

at various points of time.

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

3. As this land is said to have been governed by the

provisions of the A.P (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, applications had been

made by the predecessor in title of the petitioners for conversion

of the land into Ryotwari Patta and the same was granted on

14.06.1985 for an extent of Ac.1.60 cents of land in

Sy.No.241/3 and another Ryotwari Patta was issued on

07.03.1986 to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land in

Sy.No.241/3. These pattas were challenged before the revenue

authorities and also by way of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals

before the erstwhile High Court of A.P. After various rounds of

litigation, the orders granting Ryotwari pattas were confirmed.

The latest orders in this regard being the order of the

Commissioner of Appeals dated 23.09.2004 which was affirmed

by the orders of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, by it's judgement dated 08-02-2011 in W.P.

No. 9667 of 2005 and W.A. No. 1106 of 2008 and the order of

the Commissioner of Appeals dated 29.07.2013 which was

affirmed by the orders of a learned single Judge of the erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by judgement dated 21-09-2013

in W.P. No. 27510 of 2013. Thereafter, the Petitioners had filed

W.P.No.19290 of 2013, in which a direction to mutate the

revenue entries in their favour was granted and the same was

done, on 13.03.2014, after a contempt case had been filed.

4. At that stage, the 8th respondent, who was a party to

some of the above proceedings, had initiated O.S.No.13 of 1972

on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirupati seeking

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

recovery of the land in possession, against one Sri Muchakayala

Venkatamuni, one of the purchasers from Sri N. Kodanda

Ramaiah. This suit was dismissed, on 29.08.1975, with a

finding by the II Additional District Munsif, Tirupati that the

permanent lease given to Sri N.Kodanda Ramaiah would be

binding on the plaintiff Mutt and that the suit was filed beyond

Limitation. A.S.No.37 of 1976 filed before the Principal Sub

Judge, Chittoor against this order was dismissed, on the ground

of Limitation.

5. The petitioners having successfully resisted all

attempts to dispute their title over the land had granted

development rights to one M/s. Sri Venkateswara Construction

Company, on this land, and construction of Apartments was

taken up after obtaining all necessary permissions. Upon

construction of Apartments by the said developer, the

Petitioners had sought to register the deeds of sale for alienation

of the 60 apartments constructed in the said land and had

registered 19 such deeds of sale. At that stage, when the

petitioners sought to register certain other apartments, the Sub-

Registrar, Renigunta had informed the petitioners that the said

property was included in the prohibited list of properties under

Section 22 A(1)( c) of the Registration Act, by way of proceedings

in endorsement G/1211/2016 dated 09.07.2016, which stated

that these properties were endowment properties. The

petitioners had thereupon filed applications for deletion of the

properties from the 22-A list on the basis of the various orders

and judgments obtained by the petitioners and their

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

predecessors in title. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments

upon receipt of the applications made by the petitioners, had

addressed letters to the Mahanth of the 8 th respondent, seeking

a report on the question of issue of N.O.C to the petitioners. It

appears that the Mahanth of the 8th respondent, on 06.11.2021,

stated that the lands of the petitioners are in the name of the 8th

respondent and entered in the register maintained under section

43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the

Endowments Act, 1987') and a No Objection Certificate should

not be issued. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments had

thereupon sought further information from the Special Deputy

Collector, Land Protection Cell of the Endowment Department,

who set out the entire history of litigation over the land and

opined that the inclusion of the properties in the prohibited list

of properties is not correct. Based on these reports and the

report of Assistant Commissioner, dated 15.02.2021, the 2nd

respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2021,

rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to delete their properties

from the prohibited list with a direction to the petitioners to

approach the A.P. Endowments Tribunal for any grievances

against the entries made in the register maintained under

Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987

6. The petitioners have approached this Court on the

ground that the right of the 8th respondent had stood

extinguished a long time back by virtue of the various

Judgments and orders of the revenue authorities as well as the

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

orders of this Court and as such, the 2nd respondent could not

have directed the petitioners to approach the Endowments

Tribunal, for deletion of the entry of the said property from the

list maintained under Section 43 of the Act, 1987.

7. After notice, the 8th respondent had filed a counter

affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the 8th respondent

detailed the flow of title and various transactions over this land

and took the plea that the Saswatha patta said to have been

granted in favour of Sri N.Kodanada Ramaiah was a fabricated

patta and that the 8th respondent had also filed

W.P.(SR).No.171991 of 2013 against the orders of the

Commissioner of Appeals which went against the 8th respondent

and same is pending. The 8th respondent also took the stand

that the effect of the Saswatha patta, even it is taken to be

genuine, would not go to the extent of conferring the ownership

of the land on Sri N.Kodanda Ramaiah and consequently on any

of the other subsequent purchasers.

8. Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the 8th respondent contends that once the

property had been entered as the property of the 8th respondent

in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act, 1987,

any person claiming rights over the said property would have to

approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 of the

Act,1987 and such a person cannot insist upon an N.O.C being

issued by the Endowment Authorities without a finding on this

question by the Endowments Tribunal. He further contends that

the interlocutory order sought by the Petitioners is the same as

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

the final order and such an application cannot be considered

and relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Modiluft Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 65.

9. Sri P. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner would submit that in view of the

successive orders of the revenue authorities, the Civil Court as

well as the erstwhile High Court of A.P, the title of the

petitioners over the said land is now settled and no proceedings

to the contrary are pending.

10. The fact of the matter, as it stands today, is that

the orders by the Revenue authorities, the civil courts and the

High Court are in favour of the Petitioners. There are no

further proceedings pending today, except for the Writ

Petition said to have been filed by the 8th Respondent and

said to be pending in the SR stage since 2013. The claim of

the 8th Respondent is dependent upon the entry of the

property in the register maintained in respect of the 8 th

Respondent under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987.

11. The effect of a property being entered in the

Register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act

1987, is that the Institution can claim the benefit of Section

46 of the Endowments Act, 1987. Section 46 of the

Endowment Act, 1987 has a deeming clause which holds

that, until the contrary is established, it shall be presumed

that the entries in the register made under section 43 are

genuine. This would mean that a person aggrieved by an

entry under section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987 can

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

either challenge the same before the Endowments Tribunal

under Section 45 of the Endowments Act, 1987 or establish

facts to the contrary. In the present case there is no dispute

that the land in question originally belonged to the 8 th

Respondent. The subsequent orders of the Revenue

Authorities and the Civil Court upheld the transfer of this

land by way of a Saswatha Patta to N. Kodanda Ramaiah and

to his successors in title. These orders, which have become

final, are sufficient, prima facie, to hold that the presumption

under Section 46 of the Endowments Act, 1987 has been

rebutted.

12. However, there remains the objection of Sri L.

Ravichander, that a direction to grant NOC at this stage

would amount to grant of final relief which has been

prohibited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement

cited above. The ratio of this judgement in Union of India v.

Modiluft Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 65, is that an interlocutory order

granting final reliefs without deciding the issues involved cannot

be granted. The relevant passage reads as follows:

17. Seen from any angle, we think the High Court has erred in granting the impugned relief to the respondent which in our opinion is in the nature of a final relief which on facts and circumstances of this case, without deciding the issues involved in the writ petition, could not have been granted. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The NOC which is said to have been issued provisionally stands revoked. Payment made, if any, by the respondent would be given credit or adjusted in a manner considered appropriate by the High Court in the pending writ petition.

13. It is, prima facie, apparent that the 8th

Respondent, except insisting that it is the owner of the

property has no material to demonstrate that the Saswatha

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

patta is not valid or that the Ryotwari patta issued to the

predecessors in title of the petitioners is not valid. The

Petitioners and their predecessors in title are being driven

from one litigation to another for the past fifty years and are

entitled to some protection from the present attempt to

deprive them of the benefits of their property. A direction to

the Respondents to register the sale deeds executed by the

Petitioners in relation to these lands with a rider that any

such alienation shall be subject to the result of the Writ

Petition would be an interlocutory order which is not granting

any final reliefs.

14. In the circumstances it would be appropriate to

direct the Respondents 6 and 7 to register the documents

presented by the Petitioners to alienate the Apartments built

in the land in Survey No. 241/3, along with the appurtenant

land, subject to the condition that any alienation would be

subject to the result of the Writ Petition. This would be

equitable to both sides as the rights of the 8th Respondent, if

any, are also protected. It would also be equitable to direct

the Petitioners to include a clause in the sale deeds executed

by the Petitioners stating that the said sale deeds shall be

subject to the outcome of this writ petition.

15. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the

Respondents 6 and 7 to register the documents presented by

the Petitioners to alienate the Apartments built in the land in

Sy.No.241/3A2 to 241/3A6 of Tiruchanuru Village, Tirupati

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

Rural Mandal and District along with the appurtenant land,

provided a clause is included in the said deeds of alienation

that the said sale deeds shall be subject to the outcome of

this writ petition.

It is further clarified that that any alienation would

be subject to the result of this Writ Petition.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 21-10-2021 RJS

RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.17371 of 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

I.A. No. 1 of 2021 AND Writ Petition No.17371 of 2021

Date : 21-10-2021

RJS