Bapuram Venkat Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3343 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO


        W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 & 13104 of 2021


COMMON ORDER:


       As these writ petitions relate to the leasehold rights of the same

land and arise out of the facts, which are inter-related, they are being

disposed of by this common order.


       2.     W.P.No.10173 of 2020 and W.P.No.9688 of 2021 have been

filed by the same petitioner. W.P.No.13104 of 2021 has been filed by

another set of petitioners.


       3.     W.P.No.10173 of 2020 was filed challenging the conduct of

auction dated 08.06.2020 of the leasehold rights of the agricultural lands

admeasuring Ac.4.04 cents in Sy.No.117, Ac.5.86 cents in Sy.No.147 and

Ac.18.09 cents in Sy.No.152 of Bapuram Village, Kowthalam Mandal,

Kurnool District. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the

said lands had been given as Inam Lands to the ancestors of the

petitioner for rendering certain services to the 4th respondent-temple. As

there was a threat of dispossession, on account of the then Chairman of

the Trust Board of the 4th respondent-temple, O.S.No.121 of 1984 was

filed by the petitioner, before the Additional District Munsif Judge, Adoni

for permanent injunction against the then Trust Board and some other

persons claiming to be the lessees. This suit was decreed vide judgment

and decree dated 09.12.1988 giving liberty to the authorities to take steps

for eviction in accordance with law. This order was affirmed by the

Appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Jude,

Adoni, vide judgment dated 14.07.1997. The complaint of the petitioner

was that even though the petitioner and his family were in possession of
                                      2                                 RRR,J.

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

the said land and have not been evicted, the Executive Officer of the

group of temples, Adoni could not have conducted the auction of the

leasehold rights of the said land as the petitioners were in possession and

any auction of the leasehold rights of the land cannot fructify into a

completed contract, as the successful bidder cannot be put in possession

of the land. On 19.06.2020, this Court granted interim stay against the

respondents seeking to dispossess the petitioner and the said order was

extended from time to time.

4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner in W.P.No.10173

of 2020 had again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.9688 of 2021

on the ground that the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent-temple had

again sought to auction the leasehold rights of the land by way of an

auction scheduled to be held on 06.05.2021. In this case, this Court by an

order dated 06.05.2021 had granted interim suspension of the

proceedings for a period of eight weeks and the said order was extended

from time to time.

5. W.P.No.13104 of 2021 has been filed by the other set of

petitioners for a direction to the respondents to refund of the monies paid

by them. It appears that the auction of the leasehold rights of the land

conducted on 08.06.2020 resulted in the 1st petitioner in this writ petition

becoming the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.93,500/- for an extent of

Ac.5.86 cents in Sy.No.147 and the 2nd petitioner in this writ petition

becoming the highest bidder for an extent of Ac.18.09 cents in Sy.No.152

for a sum of Rs.3,91,000/-. These petitioners had also deposited the

above sums on 08.06.2020 itself. However, since they could not be put in

possession, the petitioners had sought for refund of the monies paid by

them. It is their further contention that respondents 3 to 6 ought to have 3 RRR,J.

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

refunded the amounts paid by them immediately after the order of stay

dated 19.06.2020 had been passed by this Court in W.P.No.10173 of 2020

and refusal to repay the amounts is an arbitrary and high-handed action

of the respondents.

6. The 4th respondent-temple has filed a counter affidavit

stating that the land in question was not in possession of the petitioner in

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 and accordingly the leasehold

rights were auctioned. It is the further case of the respondent that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Manikya Reddy v. The A.P. State Wakf

Board1 had held that the civil Courts would have no jurisdiction in

disputes relating to the Endowment property or Wakf property and as

such the judgment of the civil Court is irrelevant. It is further submitted

that the family members of the petitioner had also participated in the

auction process held on 08.06.2020 and the same would demonstrate that

the petitioner was not in possession of the land. The further contention of

the 4th respondent-temple is that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of

2021 had actually been put in possession of the property and after

obtaining the benefit of the land for the lease period, have now turned

around and are seeking to obtain refund of the lease amounts on the

ground that they were not in possession of the land at all.

7. Heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021, Sri E.

Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in

W.P.No.13104 of 2021 and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel

for the 4th respondent-temple.

    2011 (1) ALD 61 SC
                                      4                                 RRR,J.
                                                W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

8. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and

9688 of 2021 that he is in possession of the land, which was given as

service Inam initially and that he is entitled to continue in possession of

the said land, as Section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') stipulates that

such Inam lands can be resumed only in the event of the holder of the

said lands falling foul of the stipulations in Section 77 of the Act. The

petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of the civil Court in

O.S.No.121 of 1984 as affirmed by the appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of

1992 wherein a finding had been given that the petitioner is in possession

of the land and is entitled to resist any attempt of dispossession

attempted in a high-handed manner, while it would be open to the temple

authorities to proceed against the petitioner for his eviction from the said

land if it is otherwise legally permissible. Even otherwise, the very fact

that an appeal has been filed against the order of the trial Court would

attest to the factum of possession by the petitioner in W.P.No.10173 of

2020 and 9688 of 2021

9. The contention of the 4th respondent-temple is that the said

orders are not binding on the 4th respondent-temple and in any event, the

petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 was not in

possession of the said land. The 4th respondent has not chosen to produce

any document or material to show when and how the petitioner is

supposed to have lost possession of the land. In the circumstances, the

contention of the 4th respondent that the petitioner was not in possession

of the land when the auction was conducted on 08.06.2020 cannot be

accepted. The other contention of the 4th respondent is that the orders of

the civil Court are not binding on the 4th respondent as the orders were 5 RRR,J.

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

passed without jurisdiction. This issue also does not arise as the petitioner

cannot be evicted from the agricultural lands in a high-handed manner

and can only be evicted by the 4th respondent by following due process of

law. The 4th respondent has not produced any document or material to

show that the petitioner had been evicted from the possession of the land

by such a process of law.

10. In these circumstances, conduct of any auction of leasehold

rights of the said land, without dispossessing the petitioner in accordance

with law, is clearly an exercise in futility.

11. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 is that

the petitioners were never put in possession of the lands for which they

had paid lease amounts and that they are entitled for refund of the same.

The defence of the 4th respondent is that the petitioners in W.P.No.13104

of 2021 had been put in possession of the land and cannot seek refund of

the lease amounts. The 4th respondent has failed to produce any material

to show that the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 had been put in

possession of the land after being declared as the successful bidders in

the auction held on 08.06.2020. Apart from this, the petitioner in

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 has categorically asserted his

possession over the land and it is stated that even today the petitioner in

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 continues to be in possession of

the land.

12. In view of the above facts, the writ petitions are allowed

setting aside the auction proceedings dated 08.06.2020 and 06.05.2021, if

it had been held, with a direction to the 4th respondent to refund the lease

amounts paid by the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021, within a period 6 RRR,J.

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will be

open to the 4th respondent to take such steps as may be advised against

the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021. However, the

4th respondent shall not attempt any further auctions of the leasehold

rights of these lands, as long as the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020

and 9688 of 2021 remains in possession of the said land. There shall be no

order as to costs.

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

                                                 ________________________
                                                 R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

3rd September, 2021
Js
                            7                               RRR,J.
                                    W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




     W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 & 13104 of 2021




                  3rd September, 2021
Js