Srikakulam Jute Mills Private ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3550 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.14651 OF 2019

ORDER:

Srikakulam Jute Mills Private Limited filed this petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

1. To declare the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016 requesting property of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0-55 cents in Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 respectively of Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, belonging to the petitioner company to be included in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, as endowment land without support of entries in the Register maintained in the endowment under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short „Act 30 of 1987‟), as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act and also Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India;

2. To declare the consequent action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing Market Value for the above survey numbers for the purpose of conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and not receiving deeds of conveyance for registrations pertaining to the said extent of land as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of Registration Act;

3. Consequently, direct the respondents to receive, register and release the document submitted with respect to property Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0-55 cents in Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 (totalling to Ac.6-18 cents) of Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

The brief allegations of the petition are that, the petitioner -

Srikakulam Jute Mills Private Limited is a private limited company,

registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 with

Corporate Identification Number (CIN) U01134AP1999PTC031309

and its Registration No.031309. Originally, the petitioner company

was incorporated on 12.03.1999 as Madhavi AG-PET Private limited.

Thereafter, in terms of Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1956, and MSM,J WP_14651_2019

after passing necessary resolution, name of the company was

changed to Srikakulam Jute Mills Private Limited on 12.08.2013.

The petitioner company is the absolute owner and title holder

of land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0-55 cents

in Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 (totalling to

Ac.6-18 cents) of Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam

District, purchased the aforesaid land vide registered Sale Deed

bearing Document No.1079 of 2001 dated 08.06.2001 executed by

one Palisetti Appala Raju s/o Palisetti Suryam in its favour i.e.

Mahdavi AG-PET Private Limited and petitioner company is in

possession and enjoyment of the same.

The petitioner also obtained pattadar passbook and title deed

bearing Patta No.901. The recitals of Settlement Land Register also

reflect the name of petitioner‟s vendor. The latest Pahani for the year

2018 (Fasli year 1428) obtained on 06.06.2019 and also adangal for

the year 1983 (Fasli Year 1983) discloses the name of the petitioner

and petitioner‟s vendor respectively. The name of this petitioner and

his predecessor in title were also mutated in the revenue records in

Form-1B ROR. From these documents, it is clear that the petitioner

is the pattadar and predecessor in title - Palisetti Appala Raju was

the owner of the property.

As the petitioner company is intending to develop the said land

and also to sell part of land, petitioner approached the second

respondent on 17.07.2018 for conversion of land from agricultural

land to non-agricultural land for the purpose of extending existing

factory shed. The second respondent refused to provide the land

valuation and orally informed that the land in Sy.No.235/3 MSM,J WP_14651_2019

admeasuring Ac.5-11 cents of G. Sigadam Mandal was prohibited

land and classified as such under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the

Registration Act as per Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated

07.05.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Endowment

Department/Respondent No.4 to the Commissioner & Inspector

General, Stamps and Registration Department stating that the land

belongs to KSPSM Choultry, Ponduru.

Aggrieved by the action, the petitioner made an application to

delete the land admeasuring Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3,

Vandrangi Village from the list of prohibited properties under

Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 vide Application

No.TTA011800013052. Thereupon, the District Collector,

Srikakulam while rejecting the application of this petitioner, directed

the Tahsildar, G. Sigadam vide R.C.No.1627/2018/E2 dated

05.08.2018 to refer the issue to Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments, Srikakulam, as the properties are listed under

Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act.

The petitioner company then approached the Assistant

Commissioner, Endowments, Srikakulam with a request that land

admeasuring Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3 of Vandrangi Village

belongs to it and not endowment property and delete the same from

prohibited property list furnished to the Registration Department.

However, no action was taken by the Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments, Srikakulam. Aggrieved by the said inaction, the

petitioner addressed another letter dated 24.12.2018 to the District

Collector, Srikakulam to direct the Deputy Commissioner,

Endowments, Srikakulam to take appropriate action.

MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Immediately on 02.04.2019, petitioner made a representation

to the Commissioner, Endowment Department - fourth respondent

herein seeking issuance of „No Objection Certificate‟ for removal of

land from list of prohibited land under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the

Registration Act, with respect to land admeasuring Ac.5-11 cents in

Sy.No.235/3 in Vandrangi Village. In view of the petitioner‟s

representation, the fourth respondent vide proceedings

Rc.No.L3/1802(35)/2/19 dated 02.05.2019 directed the Assistant

Commissioner, Endowment Department to submit a detailed report

in the matter of issuance of „No Objection Certificate‟.

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department sent a

report to the fourth respondent stating that, as per the revenue

records, such as Settlement Land Register and property register,

land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents covered by Sy.No.235/3 is

registered in the name of KSPSM Choultry situated at Ponduru

Village and Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

It is submitted that, with regard to land in Sy.Nos.238/3 and

238/4 situated at Vandrangi Village, the Assistant Commissioner,

Endowment Department vide proceedings in Rc.No.A3/66269/2018

dated 26.04.2019 specifically admitted that no landed property of

religious or charitable institutions under the control of Endowment

Department in Sy.Nos.238/3 and 238/5 situated at Vandrangi

Village, after verifying the records as also approved property register

of the subject temple, mentioned as per Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987.

The petitioner company presented „Irrevocable General Power

of Attorney‟ to the second respondent for appointment of an attorney

with respect to the subject property, but the same was rejected MSM,J WP_14651_2019

stating that, registration with respect to the subject land is

prohibited.

The petitioner made an application under Right to Information

Act, 2005 to furnish details of land which is included in prohibited

properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The

petitioner received information on 29.11.2018 annexing the details of

land in respect of Vandrangi Village which is listed under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. It is specifically

submitted that, land admeasuring Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3,

Ac.0-55 cents in Sy.Nos.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 are

absent in the said list and petitioner‟s property was not listed under

Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act as per the information

received under Right to Information Act.

Further, the third respondent vide letter L.Dis.No.06/2019

dated 04.01.2019 produced details of property of Vandrangi Village

of G. Sigadam Mandal which are listed under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the

Registration Act. The petitioner also obtained information from the

Surveyor, Land Protection Cell vide letter dated 25.03.2019, where it

is specifically stated that, land admeasuring Ac.5-11 cents in

Sy.No.235/3 is not entered in the Register under Section 43

maintained by the Endowments Department. Therefore, from the

above, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner‟s land is not listed in

the prohibitory list of properties in the records of Vandrangi Village

of G. Sigadam Mandal and it is also not listed under Section 22-

A(i)(c) of the Registration Act, and the second respondent is denying

registration of the document on the pretext that a letter from the

fourth respondent was received for inclusion of the property in the MSM,J WP_14651_2019

prohibited property list and thus, the action of the second

respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

It is further contended that, the action of the second

respondent is illegal, for the reason that, the land is not included in

the prohibited property list, but refusal of the same on the alleged

letter of the fourth respondent, though the subject property is not

part of the letter, the second respondent action is illegal and

arbitrary, the petitioners cannot be driven from pillar to post to enjoy

it‟s property in its own right and therefore, requested to issue a

direction as stated above.

The second respondent filed counter affidavit, denying material

allegations, inter alia, contending that, the aforesaid land in different

survey numbers in Vandrangi Village of G. Sigadam Mandal,

Srikakulam District is included in prohibited property list under

Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act and it is an endowments

land, owned by various charitable institutions. It is also admitted

that the second respondent has not issued market value certificate

for the land in above survey numbers, since instructions were issued

by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and

Stamps, A.P., in Circular No.19 dated 15.09.1998 that "Government

Lands, Porambokes should be entered in the Basic Value Register

showing classification as Government Land and rate as "0". It is

submitted that, these values will later be copied automatically to the

table relating to „Prohibited Property‟ through separate programme. It

is also submitted that, through Circular Instructions

Rc.No.MV1/1926/2010 dated 31.07.2010, No.MV1/14137/2010

dated 26.10.2010 and No.MV1/14137/2010-2 dated 11.10.2012 of MSM,J WP_14651_2019

the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and

Stamps, A.P, it was instructed that, whenever Court orders or NOCs

are issued by competent authorities for registration of prohibited

properties, reference should be made to the District Registrar

concerned for fixation of Market Value for those properties, since the

value is shown as "0".

The second respondent further admitted registration of

documents alienating the property in favour of this petitioner,

executed by Palisetti Appala Raju vide Document No.1079/2001, so

also execution of various documents in favour of Palisetti Appalaraju

by his vendor.

The second respondent further admitted that, since the

property is in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A(i)(c) of

the Registration Act, 1908, as amended under Act 19 of 2007, which

was communicated in Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016 by the

fourth respondent duly including land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents

in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.Nos.238/3 and Ac.0-55 cents in

238/4 of Vandrangi Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District,

is in accordance with law.

It is further submitted that, mere intimation to the registering

authorities that the land belong to one of the entities either under

clause (b) or clause (c) is sufficient, the rigour of supplying the

reasons to prohibit registration and the publication of notification

only with regard to the properties specified under clause (e) does not

stand to reason. It is also submitted that, in Hanumanthu Krishna MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Rao and others v. Sub-Registrar, Ponduru, Srikakulam District1

this Court held that, once the Registering Authority comes to know,

or is informed that the subject matter of a document presented

before him for registration is a land, falling into any of the categories

mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(i) of the Registration

Act, he has no option, except to desist from registering the document

and he cannot embark upon or undertake any enquiry, as to the

validity, legality or propriety of the claims, vis-à-vis, the land or its

character. Thus, no option is left to the Sub-Registrar except to

register the document. The fourth respondent submitted list of

prohibited property being the competent authority and the second

respondent rejected registration of the document in accordance with

law.

The second respondent pleaded ignorance about the letter

L.Dis.06/2019 dated 04.01.2019 issued by the third respondent to

the petitioner and that the second respondent refused to furnish

market value to the petitioner only on the instructions of fourth

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,

A.P. in Circular No.19 dated 15.09.1998. Thus, the action of the

second respondent is in accordance with law and not against the

provisions of the Act or law laid down by this Court.

Finally, it is submitted that, as the endowment properties fall

under clause (c) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, if the

petitioner wants to assail the correctness or legality of the impugned

proceedings, it can avail the remedy under Section 87 of the

Endowments Act before the Endowments Tribunal constituted under

2009 (4) ALT 511 MSM,J WP_14651_2019

the Act (vide Guntur City House Construction Cooperative

Society Limited v. Tahsildar, Guntur Mandal and another2).

Therefore, unless the prohibited property list is communicated to

this petitioner, the second respondent cannot receive and process

the document in accordance with law.

Finally, it is contended that, only in terms of the law laid down

by the Courts under various provisions of the Registration Act, the

second respondent rejected the document presented for registration

by the petitioner. It is further contended that, the High Court while

disposing W.P.No.14099 of 2013 and batch cases, following the

judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant

Nahata3. In Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society

Limited and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, the Apex Court

held as follows:

"The learned counsel for the State points out that the main issue pending before the High Court is the vires of Section 22A of the Act. All the contentions now sought to be raised by the appellants are, in fact, the subject matter of the challenge before the High Court. However, we find that some of the appellants before this Court are not parties before the High Court. Since the main issue is pending before the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remit these matters to the High Court. Those persons who are parties before this Court, but not parties to the pending writ petitions in the High Court, may get themselves impleaded by way of appropriate application(s) for impleadment/intervention etc, or may even file fresh writ petitions."

The directives issued by the Full Bench of the High Court in

W.A.No.332 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015 were not set-aside by the Apex

Court. Therefore, the legality or otherwise of the provisions of

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, have not so far been

challenged in the writ petitions filed before the High Court.

2012 (2) ALT 647

2005 (7) SCALE 164

(Civil Appeal No.4019 of 2018 dated 19.04.2018) MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Therefore, the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of the High

Court in W.A.No.332 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015 are applicable to the

present facts of the case and finally requested to dismiss the writ

petition against the second respondent.

The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit, inter alia,

contending that KSPSM Choultry situated at Ponduru Village and

Mandal, Srikakulam District is a public charitable institution

published under Section 6(c)(ii) of Act 30 of 1987. The Choultry own

landed property including the subject property of an extent of

Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3 of Vandrangi Village. As per

Section 46(3) of Act 30 of 1987, it shall until the contrary is

established be presumed that all particulars entered in the registered

maintained under Section 43 of the Act are genuine. If any person is

aggrieved by an entry in the register under Section 43 of the Act,

may apply to the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45(1) of the

Act for modification or annulment of such entry as the case may be.

Where any such application relates to the right claimed by the

applicant in respect of such entry, the Endowments Tribunal shall

enquire into and decide the question as if it were a dispute within

the meaning of Section 87 of the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 shall

apply and that the order shall be final and the Assistant

Commissioner concerned shall amend the entry in the register under

Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 in accordance with law. If, the petitioner

is aggrieved by such an entry, he shall file an application before the

A.P. Endowments Tribunal for adjudication, but cannot invoke writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this

ground alone, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

MSM,J WP_14651_2019

It is further contended that, land is owned by Choultry namely

Kalagarla Suryanarayana Pydisetti Seethamma Meghadevi Choultry.

But, without impleading the Choultry, the present writ petition is

filed and it is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and

necessary parties.

The fourth respondent submitted that the representation of the

writ petitioner dated 15-03-2019 for deletion of land Ac.5-11 Cts. in

Sy.No235/3 of Vandrangi Village of Srikakulam District from the list

of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration

Act was disposed off by the fourth respondent herein vide

proceedings No. L3/18021(35)/2/2019, dated 30-12-2019 rejecting

the request of the petitioner, with an observation that, if the

applicant has any grievance against the order, he may approach the

A.P. Endowments Tribunal for redressal. The same is communicated

to the applicant through the Assistant Commissioner Srikakulam.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the relief as stated

supra, without approaching the Endowments Tribunal, as directed

by the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed this petition invoking

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

thereby, the writ petition is not maintainable.

It is further submitted that, as per Section 81 of Act 30 of 87

any sale, exchange of any immovable property belonging to any

Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment effected without

the prior sanction of the Commissioner or government such

transaction shall be null and void and shall be deemed never to have

been effected and accordingly no right or title in such property shall

vest in any person acquiring the property by such transaction and

any such property shall be deemed to be the property of the MSM,J WP_14651_2019

institution or Endowment concerned and any person in possession of

such property shall be deemed to be an encroacher. Hence, the

documents relied on by the petitioner are null and will not confer any

title to the property.

It is further submitted that, the Settlement Land Register of

Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, reflects the name of founder

of the Institution i.e., Kalagarla Suryanarayana as Pattadar. The

same is the basis to enter the land in Sy.No.235/3 to an extent of

Ac.5-11 cents., situated at Vandrangi Village in the register under

Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987. Thus, inclusion of the property in the

list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the

Registration Act is in accordance with law and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and

requested to dismiss the writ petition finally.

During hearing, Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the

documents produced along with this writ petition, more particularly,

the notification issued under Section 43 of the Endowments Act i.e.

Act 30 of 2013 and the information furnished by various authorities

would disclose registration of this property in the name of the

KSPSM Choultry. But the fourth respondent in most casual manner

communicated the list of properties to the second respondent to

refuse, registration of the document pertaining to the property

referred about without any basis. Hence, the action of Respondent

Nos. 2 & 4 is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law,

requested to issue a direction as stated above.

MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Endowments

reiterated the contentions urged in the counter affidavit, while

drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division

Bench in T. Kalpana v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa5, where based

on the said judgment, it is contended that, remedy open to this

petitioner is to approach the Endowments Tribunal by filing

appropriate application under Section 87 read with Section 45 of Act

30 of 2013. On this ground, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

That apart, the voluminous material produced along with the

counter affidavit would clinchingly establish that this property was

registered in the name of KSPSM Choultry and on the basis of

registration in the name of Kalagarla Suryanarayana Pydisetti

Seethamma Meghadevi Choultry, the property is included in the list

under Section 43 of Act 30 of 2013. As such, there is lot of material

to substantiate the contentions of the respondents and to deny the

relief to this petitioner based on the material on record and

requested to dismiss the writ petition while supporting the action of

Respondent Nos. 2 & 4, since they are under obligation to protect the

interest of the deity or the institution, as there is none to protect the

property.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration supported the action of the respondents, in view of the

communication sent by the fourth respondent about list of

prohibited property and acting thereon, the rejection order was

passed and requested to dismiss the writ petition against the second

respondent.

W.A.No.500 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012 MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Considering the contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration (Respondent No.2) and learned Government Pleader for

Endowments (Respondent No.4) herein, the points that need to be

answered are as follows:

1. Whether the land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0- 55 cents in Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 of Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, is notified under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 based on any material. If not, whether the letter addressed by the fourth respondent to the second respondent, communicating the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act is in accordance with law?

2. Whether inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act, notifying under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 without following the procedure and thereby, rejection of registration of the document by the second respondent based on the letter addressed by the fourth respondent is legal. If not, liable to be set-aside, declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently whether a direction be issued to the second respondent to receive, process, register and release the documents in accordance with law?

P O I N T No.1

The petitioner purchased the property from Palisetti Appala

Raju under different documents. The said fact is not denied by the

respondents in their counter affidavits. On the other hand, the

respondents admitted about execution of registered sale deeds by

Palisetti Appala Raju, who purchased the same from the vendor

Suryanarayana. When the petitioner approached the Sub-

Registrar/Respondent No.2, he refused to issue valuation certificate

for the purpose of conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture, as

proposed by this petitioner, on the ground that the property in the MSM,J WP_14651_2019

survey number is included in the list of prohibited properties under

Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act.

It is an undisputed fact that, pattadar passbook and title deed

were issued and name of this petitioner is mutated in Form-1B ROR,

copies of Form-1B, which is a prima facie evidence of title bearing

ROR No.011931764377 dated 06.06.2019 is placed on record to

establish that the land is mutated in the name of Srikakulam Jute

Mills Private Limited in Sy.No.235/3, Sy.Nos.238/3 & 4 and the

nature of classification is noted as „purchase‟.

The main reason for passing this order is that, the

communication given by the fourth respondent to the second

respondent regarding list of prohibited properties belonging to the

endowment institution under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration

Act. A copy of the Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016

requesting property of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3,

Ac.0-55 cents and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/3 and Sy.No.238/4

respectively of Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam

District, belong to the petitioner company to be included in the

prohibited property list under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration

Act, 1908, annexing the list of properties informing that the

properties shown in the list falling in Srikakulam District Sub-

Registers, collected through Assistant Commissioner, Endowments

Department, Srikakulam is annexed to the letter in the annexure for

necessary further action. A list is annexed to the letter in Annexure-3

Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act. In the said list, the land to

an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0-55 cents in

Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents Sy.No.238/4 respectively (totalling to MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Ac.06-18 cents) of Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal,

Srikakulam District, is included in Annexure-III, with a request to

take appropriate action. The basis for passing the impugned order is

the Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016 addressed by the

Commissioner of Endowments to the Commissioner of Inspector

General, Stamps and Registration Department, Andhra Pradesh. The

basis for this communication is the list of properties submitted to the

Commissioner in compliance of Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987.

Undisputedly, the property is registered under Act 30 of 1987

and submitted a list of properties under Section 43 of Act 30 of

1987. A copy of the list of properties is placed on record by the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to substantiate

his case. The list of properties submitted under Section 43 of Act 30

of 1987 would disclose that, land in Vandrangi Village of G. Sigadam

Mandal, is also shown at Serial No.2 and the list of properties

belonging to the Charitable Trust in Vandrangi Village are shown in

Column No.1,2,3 & 4 in the list of prohibited properties and they are

as follows:

   S.No.    Name of the village                          Survey No.    Extent
            Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal         7-1           10-79
                                                         5-2           33-99
   2                                                     6/6           53-66
                                                         130/1         46-02
            Total extent                                               144-46
   3        Vandrangi Village, G. Sigadam Mandal         235-3         5-11

Similarly, at Page No.11 of the Register maintained under

Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 by the Endowments Department, in the

abstract, Ac.144-46 cents of wet land and Ac.102-76 cents dry land

is in Vadangi Village.

                                                                       MSM,J
                                                                WP_14651_2019





                                                 Dry     Wet
           S.No.   Name of the village        Pallam   Metta
           1       Ponduru                    12-05    5-12
           2       Vadangi                    144-46   102-76
           3       Vadada                     9-04     -
           4       Keerlakota                 2-85     -
           5       Tandam                     15-85    5-67
           6       Chikkaladalasa             19-77    1-80
                                              205-02   115-35

Thus, in the list of prohibited properties, only an extent of

Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3 is shown belonging to Choultry. Based

on this document, Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016 is

submitted by the Commissioner of Endowments/fourth respondent

to the Commissioner & Inspector General, Stamps and Registration

Department, Andhra Pradesh.

Whereas, the basis for inclusion of the property in the Register

maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 is that, land of an

extent of Ac.5-11 cents is shown in the name of Kalagarla

Suryanarayana, but not in the name of the charitable trust.

Undoubtedly, the Trust and it‟s Managing Trustee are

independent and the property owned and possessed by the Trustee

in his name personally cannot be treated as property of the

institution, unless the property is dedicated to the institution by the

Trustee by executing any document in favour of the institution. In

fact, no patta was granted in favour of the institution after abolition

of estates/inam under relevant enactment in favour of holder of the

land. Thus, in the absence of patta, at best, the land may vest in the

Government until re-grant is made in favour of holder of the land. As

seen from the record, no re-grant was made in favour of holder of the

land i.e. Kalagarla Suryanarayana or in favour of the temple if it is MSM,J WP_14651_2019

treated as land belonging to the institution by the Settlement

Officer/Assistant Settlement Officer.

In any view of the matter, when once the land is included in

the Register maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, the only

remedy available to the person aggrieved by such inclusion is to file

Original Application under Section 45(2) read with Section 87 of Act

30 of 1987 before the Endowments Tribunal for appropriate relief.

But, here, the petitioner did not approach the Endowments Tribunal,

but straight away approached this Court by filing writ petition on the

ground that this property was wrongly included in the list of

prohibited properties under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act.

A perusal of the entire record, more particularly, the Register

maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 and list of prohibited

properties submitted by the Commissioner of Endowments to the

Commissioner & Inspector General, Stamps and Registration

Department, Andhra Pradesh, the subject property in dispute of

Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3 prima facie belongs to the institution.

Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner made sincere attempt to establish that the land

does not belong to the temple and very inclusion of the property in

the Register maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 is illegal.

To substantiate the contention, learned Senior Counsel placed on

record the title deeds of the predecessor of the petitioner dated

13.03.1965, 13.03.1966 and 05.03.1966. But, those documents at

best establish that this property was purchased by the vendor of this

petitioner.

MSM,J WP_14651_2019

The petitioner placed on record copy of Settlement Land

Register (SLR) which reflects the name of the petitioner‟s vendor. In

Column No.15 i.e, the name of Kalagarla Suryanarayana is

mentioned as owner of land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in

Sy.No.235/3. In Column No.26, the name of enjoyer is mentioned as

„Palisetti Suryanarayana (Appalaraju)‟ and nature of transaction is

shown as „purchase‟. Similarly, against Sy.No.238/3, the name of G.

Bodemma is mentioned against land of an extent of Ac.0-52 cents,

but it is registered in the name of Surappamma w/o Kallapalli

Rajanna. The nature of transaction is mentioned as „purchase‟.

Similarly, against Sy.No.238/4, the name of Chinna Tavitayya is

mentioned against land of an extent of Ac.0-55 cents, and it is

registered in the name of Palisetti Suryam (Appala Raju). The nature

of transaction is mentioned as „purchase‟.

The basis for issue of list of properties under Section 43 of Act

30 of 1987 is the Settlement Land Register, according to the

respondents. Merely because, the name of Palisetti Suryanarayana is

appearing in Column No.15 against Sy.No.235/3, the property is

published under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, ignoring the

purchaser shown in Column Nos.26 and 28 for an extent of Ac.5-11

cents in Sy.No.235/3, is prima facie illegal.

The petitioner only questioned the impugned Letter

Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016, but not the list of properties

maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987. Therefore, this

Court need not record any finding with regard to the legality of

inclusion of the properties in the Register maintained under MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, as it amounts to travelling beyond the

scope of the claim in the writ petition.

The petitioner questioned the letter in Rc.No.L3/9569/2016

dated 07.05.2016, directing not to register any document for the

land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.235/3, Ac.0-55 cents in

Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 of Vandrangi Village,

G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. But, as seen from the

material available on record, the two items of land in Sy.No.238/3

and Sy.No.238/4 are not registered in the name of temple, but they

are registered in the name of two different persons i.e. Surappamma

w/o Kallapalli Rajanna and Palisetti Suryam (Appala Raju)

respectively. Even it is not found in the register maintained under

Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987. Therefore, the letter impugned in the

writ petition with a request not to register the document pertaining

to the land in Sy.No.238/3 and Sy.No.238/4 is a grave illegality. To

the above extent, the letter in Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated

07.05.2016 is declared as illegal, while permitting the petitioner to

redress the grievance by approaching the Endowments Tribunal

under Section 45 read with Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987.

The petitioner also contended that, the information was

furnished to the authorities without considering the record in proper

perspective and thereby, very inclusion of the property in the list of

prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is

illegal. But, such inclusion of property in the Register maintained

under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 cannot be decided by this Court,

as observed in earlier paragraphs, since it is within the jurisdiction

of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 r/w Section 45 of Act MSM,J WP_14651_2019

30 of 1987. However, learned Government Pleader for Endowments

would contend that, when the property is included in the Registered

maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, the petitioner has to

approach the concerned authorities under Act 30 of 1987, and

placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in T. Kalpana

v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (referred supra), where the Court

held as follows:

"However, we have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also examined the material placed before us. After considering Section 87 of the Act, in our opinion, the remedy is before the said authority as specifically stated by His Lordship. Accordingly, we do not intend to interfere with the said order, since the said order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and, on the contrary, we affirm the said order passed by His Lordship, since we do not find any merit in this writ appeal."

In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of the High

Court in the judgment referred supra, the remedy open to this

petitioner is to approach the concerned Endowment Tribunal

invoking Section 45 read with Section 87 under Act 30 of 1987, and

this Court cannot exercise such power when a specific remedy is

available. Hence, I find that, the property included in the Register

maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, belong to KSPSM

Choultry, Ponduru. But, prima facie, there is not basis for such

inclusion of the land in the Register maintained under Section 43 of

Act 30 of 1987.

Hence, I find that, land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in

Sy.No.235/3 is included in the Register maintained under Section 43

of Act 30 of 1987 and based on such Register, the Commissioner of

Endowments addressed Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated

07.05.2016 to Commissioner & Inspector General, Stamps and

Registration Department, Andhra Pradesh, in accordance with law.

MSM,J WP_14651_2019

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondents.

P O I N T No.2:

In view of my foregoing discussion on Point No.1, no finding is

recorded in Point No.2, since the petitioner is relegated to approach

the Endowments Tribunal invoking Section 87 under Act 30 of 1987,

by applying the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this

Court in T. Kalpana v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (referred

supra). Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, writ petition is allowed-in-part, declaring the

impugned Letter Rc.No.L3/9569/2016 dated 07.05.2016 as illegal,

arbitrary, and set-aside the same, with respect to Ac.0-55 cents in

Sy.No.238/3 and Ac.0-52 cents in Sy.No.238/4 of Vandrangi Village,

G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District; while dismissing the claim

of this petitioner pertaining to land of an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in

Sy.No.235/3 permitting the petitioner to approach the Endowments

Tribunal invoking Section 45 read with Section 87 under Act 30 of

1987 only, strictly following the principle laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in T. Kalpana v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa

(referred supra); while.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:16.09.2021

SP