Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boreddy Eswara Reddy vs Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy ... on 14 September, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11418 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be the matadhipathi of the
1st respondent-mutt. It is his case that the Mutt was set up as a
private mutt for the benefit of the members of his family, some
time back and the mutt has been endowed with Ac.3.69 cents
by one Nallagangula Venkata Reddy by way of a registered deed
of Gift dated 22.05.1924. It is his case that the said land has
remained with the mutt and in the possession of the members of
his family and ultimately with him.
2. The petitioner submits that as the mutt was
registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987 [for short "the Act"], the same was assailed by way of
an application under Section 87 of the Act, before the Deputy
Commissioner of the Endowments by way of O.A.No.97 of 1997.
This O.A was subsequently transferred to the Endowments
Tribunal at Hyderabad and renumbered as O.A.No.791 of 2010.
Ultimately this OA was dismissed by the Endowments Tribunal
on 04.01.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is
said to have filed C.M.A.No.75 of 2018, before this Court and
the same is pending.
3. The petitioner further stated that the 1st respondent
had initially sought to conduct a public auction in the year
2011. However, the same did not go through. The petitioner is
now aggrieved by the attempt of the 1st respondent for conduct
of auction of the lease hold rights of the said lands aggregating
to Ac.3.69 cents in Kothapally Village, Nandyala Mandal,
Kurnool District.
4. Sri M. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the
order dated 04.01.2017 in O.A.No.791 of 2010 to contend that
the said order clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner was
in possession of Ac.3.69 cents of land. He further contends that
no steps of any nature were taken against the petitioner to evict
him from the said land and in the absence of any such eviction,
the 1st respondent could not have conducted any public auction
of the lease hold rights of the said land.
5. On 18.06.2021, this Court had granted an interim
stay of all further proceedings of the auction said to have been
conducted on 21.06.2021.
6. Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the
1st respondent-temple had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of
the institution.
7. An implead petition has also been filed by a person,
who sought to participate in the public auction that was to be
held on 21.06.2021.
8. A perusal of the pleadings filed on all sides would
show that while the petitioner claims that he is in the
possession of the land and no auction of lease hold rights of the
said land can be conducted, the respondents have sought to
make out the case that the petitioner is not in possession of the
said land.
9. It is clear from the proceedings before the tribunal
in O.A.No.719 of 2010, that the petitioner is in possession of the
said land. In view of the same, a public auction of the lease hold
rights of this land can be conducted only when the petitioner
has been evicted from the possession of the said land. No
proceedings have been placed before this Court to show that
such an eviction has taken place.
10. Sri Ashiwini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the implead petitioner states that the adangal and revenue
records shows the name of the executive officer of the 1st
respondent-temple as the possessor of the said land. He would
also rely upon the judgment of the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, dated 27.02.2017 in
O.S.No.360 of 2012, and would submit that the petitioner is not
in possession of the said land.
11. It is settled law that the entries in adangal and
revenue records, would not either confer title or proof of title of
the possession of the land, unless there is other corroborative
evidence supporting such a claim. In the present case, the said
corroborative evidence is sought to be brought in by the orders
of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District
in O.S.No.360 of 2012. This suit has been filed by a person, who
had obtained lease hold rights of the very same land in the year
2011 and had paid an amount of Rs.93,925/- as lease amount.
It was his case that despite depositing the lease amount, the
said land was not delivered to him as the 1st respondent was
unable to obtain possession of the said land from the writ
petitioner here in. This would only support the case of the
petitioner that he had not lost possession of the land.
12. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed,
directing the 1st respondent not to conduct any auction of the
lease hold rights of the land admeasuring of Ac.3.96 cents, until
the petitioner has been evicted from the said land in accordance
with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
14.09.2021
BSM
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11418 of 2021
14-09-2021
BSM
