Ravuri Venkat Rao vs State Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1835 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                       WRIT PETITION No.40087 of 2016

ORDER:

This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc.No.L1/9574/2016 dated 05.07.2016 and Annexure-III under Sec.22(A) (1) (C) dated 01.09.2016 requesting the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to prohibit registration of documents over the property measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot No.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District U/Sec.22(A) (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not entertaining any document in relation to the property measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot No.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District as the same belongs to the 7th respondent temple as bad, illegal, contrary to the rules and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to entertain the documents presented for registration in respect of the land measuring Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot No.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama Village and Maridal, Krishna District"

The petitioner purchased the subject land under registered

sale deed. Respondent No.7 own and possessed land to an extent of

Ac.10.04 cents in Sy.No.671 situated at Nandigama village and

Mandal, Krishna District. As per the permission of the

Commissioner, Endowments Department, the then Manager of the

respondent No.7 temple has issued paper publication on 11.05.1977

for sale of the land belonging to respondent No.7 temple in public

auction on 20.05.1977, 21.05.1977 and 22.05.1977 for the plots

belonging to it, measuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½ cents out of

total extent of Ac.10.04 cents in RS.No.671 of Nandigama village and

Taluk, Krishna District. The vendor's vendor one D.Venkateswara

Rao has participated in the auction and became highest bidder for

plot No.1 and plot No.14 measuring Ac.0.10 cents each totalling

Ac.0.20 cents. The Commissioner, Endowments Department has MSM,J wp_40087_2016

approved the auction vide D.Dis.No.A6/33843/1977 dated

16.12.1977.

The then manager of respondent No.7 temple has executed a

registered sale deed on 05.01.1978 in favour of D.Venkateswara Rao

S/o. Gopala Krishna Murthy, vide document No.36/1978.

Thereafter, the said D.Venkateswara Rao sold Ac.0.20 cents in

favour Bhagya Lakshmi vide document No.1931/1986 dated

25.09.1986. Later, the said Bhagya Lakshmi has sold the same to

one Narayana Rao vide document No.2095/1986 dated 03.11.1986.

Thereafter, the said K.Narayana Rao sold Ac.0.10 cents to one

Padma vide document No.772/2008 dated 13.03.2008. The said

Padma sold Ac.0.10 cents to the petitioner vide document

No.3977/2015 dated 27.07.2015. Now petitioner is proposing to sell

away the said property, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not

entertaining any documents under the guise of the Annexure-III

issued by respondent No.6.

It is specifically contended that the endowments department

having sold the property through public auction as per the procedure

contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu

Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "Act

No.30 of 1987"), now cannot turn round and include the said

property in the list of properties held by the endowment institutions

either religious institution or charitable institution. The Division

Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Sri

Yellamma Ammavari Temple, vs. Sita Rama Raju (W.A.No.106 of

2014)" held that the Commissioner doesn't have any

jurisdiction/authority to issue any such letter or proceedings

requesting the Inspector General of the stamps and registration not MSM,J wp_40087_2016

to entertain any registration in respect of the properties held by the

endowment institutions. As such, the list issued in Annexure-III

submitted to the sub-registrar is bad and is liable to be set-aside in

respect of the property, requested to issue a direction as claimed in

the writ petition.

Respondent No.7 filed counter denying material allegations

inter alia contending that Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple,

Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District is notified under

Section 6 (a) of the Act No.30 of 1987 and the same is under the

administrative control of the Endowments Department, Andhra

Pradesh. Respondent No.7 admitted about issue of notification on

11.05.1977 for sale of the land measuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11

½ cents out of total extent of Ac.10.04 cents in R.S.No.671 of

Nandigama Village and Taluk, Krishna District and the same were

sold on 20.05.1977, 21.05.1977, 22.05.1977, 23.05.1977 and

24.05.1977..

Respondent No.7 also admitted that the bid was knocked down

in favour of D.Venkateswara Rao for plot Nos.1 and 14 for an extent

of Ac.0.10 cents each totalling Ac.0.20 cents for an amount of

Rs.3,450/- and Rs.3,000/-, totalling Rs.6,450/-. The Commissioner,

Endowments Department vide proceedings dated 16.12.1977 has

approved the auction, so also execution of registered sale deed in

favour of highest bidder.

The specific contention of respondent No.7 is that due to

oversight the property measuring Ac.0.20 cents sold in public

auction to D.Venkateswara Rao was included in the list

communicated to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps MSM,J wp_40087_2016

and Registration dated 05.07.2016, requested to pass appropriate

order in accordance with law.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated

the contentions urged in the petition while placing reliance on the

judgment of this Court passed in "Mopuri Hemavathi vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.23856 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021)". On the

strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the

petitioner requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ

petition.

Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent

No.7 vehemently contended that no direction can be issued against

the official respondents as claimed by the petitioner and that the

subject property was endowment property belonging to the temple, in

such case, the specific procedure laid down in "Vinjamuri

Rajagopalachari v. State of Andhra Pradesh1" is to be followed,

but instead of following such procedure, the petitioner approached

this Court. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 requested

to dismiss the writ petition relying on the judgment of this Court

passed in "Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah vs. The State of Andhra

Pradesh (W.P.No.9686 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021)".

It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.7 owned and

possessed land to an extent of Ac.10.04 cents in Sy.No.671 situated

at Nandigama village and Mandal, Krishna District. As per the

permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, the then

Manager of the respondent No.7 temple has issued paper publication

on 11.05.1977 for sale of the land belonging to respondent No.7

2016 (1) ALT 550 MSM,J wp_40087_2016

temple in public auction on 20.05.1977, 21.05.1977 and 22.05.1977

for the plots belonging to it, measuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½

cents out of total extent of Ac.10.04 cents in RS.No.671 of

Nandigama village and Taluk, Krishna District. The vendor's vendor

one D.Venkateswara Rao has participated in the auction and became

highest bidder for plot No.1 and plot No.14 measuring Ac.0.10 cents

each totalling Ac.0.20 cents. The Commissioner, Endowments

Department has approved the auction vide D.Dis.No.A6/33843/1977

dated 16.12.1977.

It is also not in dispute that the then manager of respondent

No.7 temple has executed a registered sale deed on 05.01.1978 in

favour of D.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Gopala Krishna Murthy, vide

document No.36/1978. Thereafter, the said D.Venkateswara Rao

sold Ac.0.20 cents in favour Bhagya Lakshmi vide document

No.1931/1986 dated 25.09.1986. Later, the said Bhagya Lakshmi

has sold the same to one Narayana Rao vide document

No.2095/1986 dated 03.11.1986. Thereafter, the said K.Narayana

Rao sold Ac.0.10 cents to one Padma vide document No.772/2008

dated 13.03.2008. The said Padma sold Ac.0.10 cents to the

petitioner vide document No.3977/2015 dated 27.07.2015. Now

petitioner is proposing to sell away the said property, but respondent

Nos.3 and 4 are not entertaining any documents under the guise of

the Annexure-III issued by respondent No.6.

Padma became the owner of the subject property as on the

date of execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The

purchase of the petitioner is also not in dispute and when the

petitioner intend to sell the property, approached the Sub-Registrar,

he informed that an intimation was sent to the District Registrar by MSM,J wp_40087_2016

the Commissioner of Endowments, respondent No.5 prohibiting

registration of any document in respect of the subject property as it

is included in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section

22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. On the basis of such

intimation given by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 refused to

receive the document and register the same.

When the property belongs to Endowments or Charitable

Institution, the sale of the same is permitted subject to following the

procedure prescribed under Section 80 of the Act No.30 of 1987,

which prescribes certain procedure i.e. calling for objections from the

persons interested etc., and sale of immovable property in the open

auction and confirmation of sale by Commissioner of Endowments.

While adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 80

of the Act No.30 of 1987, respondent No.7 issued paper publication

on 11.05.1977 for sale of the land belongs to respondent No.7 temple

in public auction from 20.05.1977 to 24.05.1977 for the plots

admeasuring Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.11 ½ cents out of total extetn of

Ac.10.04 cents in R.S.No.671 of Nandigama Village and Taluk,

Krishna District. Issue of notification is in compliance of Section 80

of the Act No.30 of 1987.

It is an admitted fact that D.Venkateswara Rao has

participated in the auction and became the highest bidder for plot

Nos.1 and 14 for an extent of Ac.0.10 cents each. Respondent No.7

also admitted inclusion of subject property in the prohibitory

properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act,

1908, but it is due to oversight as averred in paragraph No.7 of the

counter filed by respondent No.7. The reason for inclusion of subject MSM,J wp_40087_2016

property in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A

(1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 is a mistake or oversight of

respondent No.5 - the Commissioner, Endowments Department.

When once the subject property was included in the prohibitory

properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration

Act, 1908 due to oversight, respondent No.5 ought to have taken

steps to delete the same from the prohibitory properties list, but

simply requested this Court to pass appropriate order in accordance

with law.

In similar circumstances, this Court in "Mopuri Hemavathi vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.23856 of 2020 dated

23.09.2021) issued a direction to the Sub-Registrar therein to receive

the sale deed that may be presented by the petitioner and register

the same subject to complying with the provisions of the Registration

Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The facts of the above judgment are identical to the present

facts of the case.

Learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 placed reliance

on the judgment of this Court passed in "Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah

vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.9686 of 2021 dated

23.09.2021)". In the said judgment, the action of respondent Nos.2

and 3 therein i.e. inclusion of the property of the petitioner therein

was declared as illegal and arbitrary, consequently directed the

respondents to delete the property from the list of prohibited

properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in compliance of

Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four weeks from

today and communicate the same to Respondent No.5 therein. On MSM,J wp_40087_2016

receipt of communication, the Respondent No.5-Sub-Registrar is

directed to receive, process and register the document presented for

registration pertaining to the subject land, subject to complying the

legal formalities under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act,

1908.

Even as per the judgment of this Court in "Pathuri Anantha

Ramaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.9686 of 2021

dated 23.09.2021)", relied on by the learned standing counsel for

respondent No.7, this Court declared the action of the official

respondents therein as illegal and arbitrary. If the principle laid

down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the

case, keeping in view, the admission made by respondent No.7 in

paragraph No.7 of the counter, the very inclusion of subject property

in the prohibitory properties list notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of

the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and arbitrary since the property

is already sold in the public auction strictly adhering to the

procedure prescribed under Section 80 of the Act No.30 of 1987 and

the same was approved by respondent No.5 vide

D.Dis.No.A6/33843/1977 dated 16.12.1977. Hence, I find no

substance in the contention urged by the learned standing counsel

for respondent No.7 as the admission made by respondent No.7 in

the counter is sufficient to reject the contention of learned standing

counsel for respondent No.7. Accordingly, the contention of the

learned standing counsel for respondent No.7 is rejected.

In view of my foregoing discussion, the writ petition deserves to

be allowed.

MSM,J wp_40087_2016

In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the

proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in

Rc.No.L1/9574/2016 dated 05.07.2016 and Annexure-III under

Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 dated 01.09.2016

requesting the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration

and Stamps Department, Andhra Pradesh, to prohibit registration of

documents pertaining to the subject property measuring Ac.0.10

cents in Sy.No.671, Plot Nos.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama village

and Mandal, Krishna District Under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the

Registration Act, 1908 and the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in

not entertaining any document in relation to the property measuring

Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.671, Plot Nos.1 and 14 situated at Nandigama

village and Mandal, Krishna District as the same belongs to

respondent No.7 temple as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently,

respondent No.5 is directed to delete the subject property from the

list of prohibited properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in

compliance of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four

weeks from today and communicate the same to respondent No.4.

On receipt of communication, respondent No.4 - Sub-Registrar is

directed to receive, process and register the document presented for

registration pertaining to the subject property, subject to complying

the legal formalities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the

Registration Act, 1908. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

also stand dismissed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 19.04.2022 Ksp