Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Srinivasulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
W.P.No.10386 of 2021
Between:
# G. Srinivasulu, S/o. Chinna Venkata Ramana,
Archaka, Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple,
R/o. Ganjigaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta,
Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Government of
Andhra Pradesh at Gollapudi, Krishna District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,
Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.
4. The Executive Officer, The Group of Temples, Sri Obeleswara Swamy
Temple, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram
District, office at Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.
5. The Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Ananthapuram Town,
Ananthapuram District.
6. The District Collector, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Revenue Division, Kadiri Town,
Ananthapuram District.
8. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Talupula, Ananthapuram District.
9. Smt. C. Adilakshmamma, W/o. C. Narayanana, R/o. 7-2, Boyapalli
Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.
10. Smt. B. Lakshmidevi, W/o. Bonala Venkataramana, R/o. Boyapalli
Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.
11. Baigolla Narayanamma, W/o. B. Ganganna, R/o. 8-80, Kotta
Poolavandlapalli, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 14-09-2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
Date: 14-09-2021
W.P.No.10386 of 2021
Between:
# G. Srinivasulu, S/o. Chinna Venkata Ramana,
Archaka, Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple,
R/o. Ganjigaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta,
Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Government of
Andhra Pradesh at Gollapudi, Krishna District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,
Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.
4. The Executive Officer, The Group of Temples, Sri Obeleswara Swamy
Temple, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram
District, office at Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.
5. The Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Ananthapuram Town,
Ananthapuram District.
6. The District Collector, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Revenue Division, Kadiri Town,
Ananthapuram District.
8. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Talupula, Ananthapuram District.
9. Smt. C. Adilakshmamma, W/o. C. Narayanana, R/o. 7-2, Boyapalli
Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.
10. Smt. B. Lakshmidevi, W/o. Bonala Venkataramana, R/o. Boyapalli
Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.
11. Baigolla Narayanamma, W/o. B. Ganganna, R/o. 8-80, Kotta
Poolavandlapalli, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.
... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioners : Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Endowments
^Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri G. Ramana Rao, Standing Counsel
^Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri Ch.C. Satyanarayana
^Counsel for Respondents 6 to 8 : G.P. for Revenue
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
3 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
ORDER:
These two writ petitions are being filed by the same writ petitioner
and relating to the issue of alienation of the land belonging to the temple,
known as Sri Obeleswara Swamy Konda, Ganjivaripalli, H/o.
Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District, both the writ
petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner is a devotee and Archaka of the deity in Sri
Obeleswara Swamy Temple situated at Ganjivaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta,
Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District. This temple is the owner of
Ac.88.45 cents of agricultural lands in Sy.No.901 of Vapamanipeta
Revenue Village, Talupula Mandal. About Ac.22.45 cents of this land was
given to the family of the petitioner for their livelihood for performing
Archakatvam in the said temple. The leasehold rights of the remaining
Ac.66.00 cents were being auctioned by the Executive Officer of the said
temple. However, the petitioner came to know, a year back, that the said
Ac.66.00 cents of land is being sold to the SC Corporation for distribution
of the land among the weaker sections of the society. On account of the
objections raised by the devotees and villagers, these proposals were not
moved forward. However, when some persons claiming to be the
beneficiaries of such a scheme, sought to trespass into the land, the
petitioner and other villagers had made enquiries. It is stated that in the
course of these enquiries, the petitioner came to know that it was
proposed to sell the land of the temple to the SC Corporation at the rate
of Rs.15,000/- per acre and 80% of the amount had already been
received by the temple and only remaining 20% balance amount has to
4 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
be received by the temple. It appears that the Executive Officer of the
temple had written a letter dated 27.12.2020 to the SC Corporation
requesting for payment of the remaining 20% balance amount after which
the possession of the land would be delivered. Apart from this, the
Executive Officer also addressed a letter to the Station House Officer of
Talupula Police Station for necessary police protection. Subsequently, the
District Collector, Ananthapur, addressed a letter dated 07.01.2021 to the
Executive Director of the SC Corporation to take necessary steps to obtain
a Government Order for registration of the temple land in favour of the
beneficiaries.
3. At that stage, the Executive Officer of the temple had
published a notice dated 10.02.2021 proposing to hold a public auction of
the leasehold rights of the land on 22.02.2021. As this auction had not
been held, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.10386 of 2021. The relief sought in this writ petition is for a
declaration that the proposed sale of land is illegal and violative of the
provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 and to pass such consequential orders, as may be
necessary.
4. On 23.06.2021, this Court had granted an interim direction
restraining transfer of the land to any person or Corporation including the
5th respondent for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the interim
direction was extended till further orders.
5. The writ petitioner had again filed W.P.No.14389 of 2021 for
a direction to the authorities to conduct auction of the leasehold rights
over the said land.
5 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
6. After notice, the 4th respondent, who is the Executive Officer
of the temple, had filed a counter affidavit.
7. The 5th respondent, though represented by an advocate, has
not chosen to file any counter affidavit in the present matters, despite
various opportunities being given to the 5th Respondent.
8. While the matters were pending before this Court, I.A.No.2
of 2021 was filed by the petitioners therein for impleading them as
respondents 9 to 11. The proposed implead petitioners had also filed
I.A.No.3 of 2021 for vacating the interim direction granted on 23.06.2021.
9. The case of the implead petitioners, who have been
impleaded today by way of a separate order, is that they along with other
women belonging to the depressed classes in the District had sought
allotment of land. Basing on their request, the SC Corporation and the
endowments department had entered into an agreement for sale of
Ac.66.00 cents of land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre in the year 1995
itself. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.7,92,000/- was paid by the SC Corporation
to the endowments department towards 80% of the sale consideration of
the land and the remaining 20% was to be paid after registration of the
land in favour of the beneficiaries. It is further stated that the 3rd
respondent, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments,
Ananthapur, had handed over the possession of the land to the SC
Corporation, who had, in turn, allotted the land to 45 beneficiaries
identified through a lottery system and these beneficiaries including the
implead petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective
shares. It is also admitted that the implead petitioners could not obtain
6 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
passbooks even though their names were recorded in the revenue
records.
10. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that
an agreement set out by the implead petitioners had been arrived at.
Various details of the communications between the authorities in relation
to these transactions have been stated in the counter affidavit and are not
being recorded in the present order as it would suffice to mention that
there was a proposal for alienation of the land culminating in submission
of proposals under Section 80(1) of the Act for sale of the land. However,
the sale transaction was not finalised on account of lack of Government
Orders in respect of a sale by way of private negotiations in favour of the
5th respondent. The 4th respondent has taken the specific plea that even
though 80% of the sale amount had been paid, the land had not been
distributed to the beneficiaries, as permission for sale from the
Government had not yet been received and the remaining 20% of sale
consideration has not been received.
11. Heard Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for
respondents 1 to 3, Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the
4th respondent and Sri Ch. C. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing
for the 5th respondent-SC Corporation, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue appearing for respondents 6 to 8 and Ambati Srikant Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioners.
12. The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the Act,
which governs the management and alienation of the properties of Hindu
7 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
Religious Institutions and Endowments including temples. The provisions
relating to alienation of immoveable property of such temples is set out in
Chapter-X of the Act. Section 80, which is relevant, reads as follows:
80. Alienation of immovable property. - (1) (a) Any
gift, sale, exchange or mortgage of any immovable
property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose
of any charitable or religious institution or endowment
shall be null and void unless any such transaction, not
being a gift, is effected with prior sanction of the
Commissioner.
(b) The Commissioner, may after publishing in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette the particulars relating to the proposed
transaction and inviting any objections and suggestions,
with the respect thereto and considering all objections and
suggestions if any received from the trustee or other
person having interest, accord such sanction where he
considers that the transaction is-
(i) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the
institution or endowment:
(ii) in respect of immovable property which is
uneconomical for the institution or endowment to own and
maintain; and
(iii) the consideration therefor is adequate and proper.
(c) Every sale of any such immovable property sanctioned
by the Commissioner under clause (b) shall be effected by
tender-cum-publication in the prescribed manner subject
to the confirmation by Commissioner within a period
prescribed;
Provided that the Government may, in the interest of the
institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded
therefor in writing, permit the sale of such immovable
property, otherwise than by public auction; Provided
further that the Government may purchase the lands
situated in Scheduled Areas belonging to institutions or
endowments, wherever necessary, otherwise than by
8 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
public auction and assign such lands to the members of
the Scheduled Tribes.
13. The language of the above provision is clear and
unambiguous. An analysis of the same would show:
A) The immoveable property belonging to an institution or
endowment, including Temples, cannot be alienated either by way of gift,
sale, exchange or mortgage.
B) However, if such necessity arises, such property can be
alienated after obtaining the 'Prior' sanction of the Commissioner. Since
the word 'Prior'' is used, this sanction has to be taken before any step,
for alienation, including any agreement or understanding, binding the
institution, is arrived at.
C) The Commissioner, upon any such request, for prior sanction,
being made, will not only publish the details of the proposed transaction
in the Official Gazette, but also invite objections to the said proposal from
the Trustees of the Institution and any "Person having Interest'' by
giving adequate publicity to the said proposal. The term "Person having
Interest'' is being defined in section 2 (18) of the Act.
D) The Commissioner will then consider all the objections filed by
the Trustees and the persons having interest and take a decision granting
or refusing such sanction.
E) The consideration of the Commissioner for deciding such
proposals for alienation of immoveable property shall be guided solely by
the three following factors and no other factor:
9 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
(i) Whether such alienation is necessary or beneficial for the
temple; or
(ii) Whether it is uneconomical to the temple to own and
maintain such immoveable property;
(iii) If the consideration paid for such alienation is adequate and
proper in the event of either of the earlier requirements
being met.
F) In the event of sanction being granted and the said alienation
is by way of sale, the same shall be done only by way of tender cum
publication.
G) Any such sale shall be completed only after obtaining the
confirmation of the Commissioner.
H) The requirement that all sales have to be by way of public
auction can be waived only in two circumstances.
(i) Where, the Government, for reasons recorded in writing,
stating that, it is in the interest and benefit of the Institution,
permits the sale of the immoveable property other than by
way of public auction; or
(ii) Where the land situated in scheduled areas is purchased by
the Government itself for the purpose of assigning the said
lands to the members of the Schedule Tribes.
14. Any alienation of the immoveable property of an institution
is invalid and void unless, the above conditions are complied with. As held
above, the fundamental and primary conditions for a valid alienation of
the immoveable property of an institution under this Act is the
requirement that it is necessary and beneficial for such an institution or
10 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
that the institution finds it uneconomical to own and maintain the said
property. The immoveable property belonging to an institution or
endowment cannot be alienated because the Commissioner of
Endowments or the Government of the day deems it appropriate to
alienate the said property for reasons other than those stipulated in
Section 80 of the Act.
15. In the present case, the proposal to sell the land is not on
account of any benefit accruing to the temple or on account of the land
being uneconomical for the temple to own and maintain. It is for the
purpose of distribution of the land to various beneficiaries. Such a purpose
is not for the benefit of the institution. In the circumstances, there can be
no question of sale of the land in favour of the 5th Respondent corporation
or any of the beneficiaries either by way of private negotiations or public
auction.
16. A further issue that arises in the present case is that of the
pendency of W.P.No.11812 of 2005 and the directions of the Division
Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. dated 22.11.2005 in
W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005. The Division Bench
was pleased to direct that no sale of endowment land shall be affected
without the permission of the Court pending further orders, in the said
writ petition. The said writ petition is still pending before the Court. In the
said circumstances, there can be no sale of the land of the temple to any
person or organisation, without approaching the Court for such
permission. No such proceedings have been pleaded or placed before this
Court.
11 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
17. The implead petitioners, who are some of the beneficiaries,
claim that they are in possession of the land, while the 4th respondent
states that the land has not been distributed among the beneficiaries and
that no cultivation is being carried on in the said land, and none of the
beneficiaries are in possession of the land. This Court is not going into this
issue of disputed fact, as any such distribution, even if it has taken place,
is a distribution of land, which does not belong to the 5th Respondent-
Corporation, which is clearly illegal, and cannot confer any rights on either
the SC Corporation or any of the said beneficiaries. In the alternative,
even the 4th Respondent, in the absence of the prior sanction of the
Commissioner Endowments and the waiver of the requirement of public
auction by the Government, could not have alienated or handed over
possession of the land either to the 5th respondent or the beneficiaries.
18. As it has already been held that the alleged beneficiaries
could not have been put in possession of the land, it would always be
open to the 4th respondent to initiate action for eviction of the said
beneficiaries in the event of such beneficiaries being in possession of the
land. At the same time, the fact that these persons are members of the
weaker sections of the society cannot be lost sight of. It would be
necessary for the 5th Respondent to take steps to ensure that these
beneficiaries are compensated by allotment of alternative land which can
be acquired by the 5th respondent, elsewhere, either by way of private
purchase of any other land or by obtaining such land from the
Government.
19. These writ petitions are allowed, declaring that the proposed
alienation of the land admeasuring Ac.66.00 cents of land belonging to Sri
Obeleswara Swamy Temple situated in Survey No.901 of Ganjivaripalli,
12 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District, to the 5th
respondent SC Corporation, is violative of the provisions of Section 80 of
the Endowment Act, 1987 and is set aside with a further direction to the
4th respondent to take steps for auctioning the leasehold rights of the
said land in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of
Agricultural lands Rules, 2003. The initial funds obtained from such an
auction shall be used to refund the advance amounts paid by the 5th
respondent-Corporation only after the 4th Respondent is able to hand over
the said land to the successful bidder in such auction.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
14th September, 2021
Js
13 RRR,J.
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021
14th September, 2021
Js
