Ark Constructions vs Prl.Secretary Revenue And 6 Othrs
2022 Latest Caselaw 1838 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                      WRIT PETITION No.429 of 2017

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.0.15 cents in Sy.No.821 and 822, Plot No.1 situated at Nandigama Town 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.0.15 cents in Sy.No.821 and 822, Plot No.1 situated at Nandigama Town 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.0.15 cents in Sy.No.821 and 822, Plot No.1 situated at Nandigama Town 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.11.68 cents in Sy.No.821 and Ac.8.32 cents in Sy.No.822 situated

at Nandigama Town 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

calling for objections on 29.03.1994 and auction notification was

issued on 19.05.1996 for sale of the land belonging to respondent

No.7 temple in public auction from 06.06.1996 to 10.06.1996 for the

plots belonging to it, measuring Ac.18.53 cents in Sy.No.821 to 824,

826, 828, 830 and 837 of Nandigama Village and Taluk, Krishna

District, leaving Ac.4.63 cents for road purpose and Ac.0.82 cents MSM,J wp_429_2017

towards community purpose to Gram Panchayat, Nandigama. The

vendor's vendor one P.Satyanaryana Rao S/o. Poogallu, Tadepalli

Sitaramachandra Murthy, s/o Chinna Mallaiah and Managing

partner of the petitioner have participated in the auction and became

highest bidders for the Phase-II, plot No.1 measuring Ac.0.16 cents

in Sy.No.821/3 and 822 for consideration of Rs.27,100/-. The

Commissioner, Endowments Department has approved the auction

vide R.Dis.No.M1/33560/ 1996 dated 11.09.1996.

The Executive Officer of respondent No.7 temple has executed

a registered sale deed on 15.03.1997 in favour of P.Satyanaryana

Rao S/o. Poogallu, Tadepalli Sitaramachandra Murthy and balance

Ac.0.05 cents was registered by the then Executive Officer in favour

of Managing partner of the petitioner herein vide sale deed dated:

01.11.2012. Later, he executed sale deed in favour of one Sakhamuri

Nageswara Rao on 13.03.2013.

It is further contended that for the Ac.0.10 cents of land

Tadepalli Sitaramachandra murty has executed sale deed in favour

of Dasari Sambasiva Rao vide sale deed dated 20.12.2007, thereafter

the said Sambasiva Rao executed sale deed in favour of Godapati

Venkat Rao vide sale deed dated: 13.03.2013. Subsequently

Godapati Venkat Rao executed sale deed in favour of Ravi Jhansi

Lakshmi. Thereafter, Shakamuri Nageswara Rao and Ravi Jhansi

Lakshmi have executed a sale deed dated 03.10.2015 in favour of the

petitioner firm herein vide document No.6165/2015 registered at

Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama. 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.

MSM,J wp_429_2017

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

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

endowment institutions. As such, the list issued under 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

19.05.1996 for sale of the land in various survey numbers (referred

above) in the public auction from 06.06.1996 to 10.06.1996 and

reservation of Ac.4.63 cents for road purpose and Ac.0.82 cents

towards community purpose to Gram Panchayat, Nandigama Village

and Taluk, Krishna District.

MSM,J wp_429_2017

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

in favour of P.Satyanarayana Rao, Tadepalli Sitaramachandra

Murthy and the Managing partner of petitioner for Phase - II, plot

No.1 admeasuring Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.821/3 and 822 for an

amount of Rs.27,100/-. The Commissioner, Endowments

Department has approved the auction vide

R.Dis.No.M1/33560/1996 dated 11.09.1996, so also execution of

registered sale deed in favour of highest bidder by the Executive

Officer of respondent No.7.

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

oversight the property admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents sold in

public auction to P.Satyanarayana Rao and Tadepalli

Sitaramachandra Murthy was included in the list

communicated to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps

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 is endowment property belonging to the temple, in MSM,J wp_429_2017

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.11.68 cents in Sy.No.821 and

Ac.8.32 cents in Sy.No.822 situated at Nandigama Town 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 calling for

objections on 29.03.1994 against proposed sale and auction

notification was issued on 19.05.1996 for sale of the land belonging

to respondent No.7 temple in public auction from 06.06.1996 to

10.06.1996 for the plots belonging to it, measuring Ac.18.53 cents in

Sy.No.821 to 824, 826, 828, 830 and 837 of Nandigama Village and

Taluk, Krishna District, leaving Ac.4.63 cents for road purpose and

Ac.0.82 cents towards community purpose to Gram Panchayat,

Nandigama. The vendor's vendor one P.Satyanaryana Rao S/o.

Poogallu, Tadepalli Sitaramachandra Murthy, s/o Chinna Mallaiah

and Managing partner of the petitioner have participated in the

auction and became the highest bidders for the Phase-II, plot No.1

measuring Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.821/3 and 822 for an amount of

Rs.27,100/-. The Commissioner, Endowments Department has

approved the auction vide R.Dis.No.M1/33560/ 1996, dated

2016 (1) ALT 550 MSM,J wp_429_2017

11.09.1996. The Executive Officer of respondent No.7 temple has

executed a registered sale deed on 15.03.1997 in favour of

P.Satyanaryana Rao S/o. Poogallu, Tadepalli Sitaramachandra

Murthy and balance Ac.0.05 cents was registered by the then

Executive Officer in favour of Managing partner of the petitioner

herein vide sale deed dated 01.11.2012. Later, he executed sale deed

in favour of one Sakhamuri Nageswara Rao on 13.03.2013. For the

Ac.0.10 cents of land Tadepalli Sitaramachandra murty has executed

sale deed in favour of Dasari Sambasiva Rao vide sale deed dated

20.12.2007, thereafter the said Sambasiva Rao executed sale deed in

favour of Godapati Venkat Rao vide sale deed dated 13.03.2013.

Subsequently Godapati Venkat Rao executed sale deed in favour of

Ravi Jhansi Lakshmi. Thereafter Shakamuri Nageswara Rao and

Ravi Jhansi Lakshmi have executed a sale deed dated 03.10.2015 in

favour of the petitioner firm herein vide document No.6165/2015

registered at Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama.

Thus, Shakamuri Nageswara Rao and Ravi Jhansi Lakshmi

became owners of the subject property as on the date of execution of

sale deed in their favour. 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 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.

MSM,J wp_429_2017

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

calling for objections on 29.03.1994. Since no objections were

received, notification was issued on 19.05.1996 for sale of the land

belongs to respondent No.7 temple in public auction from

06.06.1996 to 10.06.1996 for the plots admeasuring Ac.18.53 cents

in Sy.No.821 to 824, 826, 828, 830 and 837 of Nandigama Village

and Taluk, Krishna District leaving Ac.4.63 cents for road purpose

and Ac.0.82 cents towards community purpose to Gram Panchayat,

Nandigama. Issue of notification is in compliance of Section 80 of the

Act No.30 of 1987.

It is an admitted fact that P.Satyanaryana Rao S/o. Poogallu,

Tadepalli Sitaramachandra Murthy, s/o Chinna Mallaiah and

Managing partner of the petitioner have participated in the auction

and became the highest bidders for the Phase-II, plot No.1

measuring Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.821/3 and 822 for an amount of

Rs.27,100/-. 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 property in the prohibitory properties MSM,J wp_429_2017

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

receipt of communication, the Respondent No.5-Sub-Registrar is MSM,J wp_429_2017

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.

In the counter, respondent No.7 admitted about the sale of

Ac.0.10 cents in favour of the predecessors in title of the petitioner in

the public auction. But the petitioners claimed Ac.0.15 cents in

Sy.No.821 and 822 situated at Nandigama Town, Krishna District.

Though, respondent No.7 admitted about the execution of sale deed

for Ac.0.10 cents, still there is a difference of Ac.0.05 cents in

particular survey number. Though, the respondents did not whisper

about the sale of additional extent of Ac.0.05 cents either by

admission or denial. But, the petitioner himself furnished a copy of

the sale deed dated 01.11.20212 executed by respondent No.7 in

favour of Gollapudi Apparao, s/o Ramalingam conveying an extent of

242 sq.yards in R.S.No.821/3 and R.S.No.822/1A bearing plot No.1,

which is equivalent to Ac.0.05 cents. Thus, the petitioner

substantiated its case by producing documentary evidence and the

same is not denied by respondent No.7 or any of the respondents

specifically. Thus, the petitioner established its case for the land an

extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.821 and 822, plot No.1 situated at

Nandigama Town, Krishna District.

Respondent No.7 himself admitted about the inclusion of land

of Ac.0.10 cents in the prohibitory properties list notified under

Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 by mistake, such

judicial admission is sufficient to accept the contention of the

petitioner with regard to Ac.0.10 cents. The petitioner substantiated MSM,J wp_429_2017

its case with regard to Ac.0.05 cents of land in R.S.No.821/3 and

R.S.No.822/1A of Nandigama, Krishna District by producing copy of

sale deed dated 01.11.2012. Therefore, the respondents ought not to

have included the subject property in the prohibitory properties list

notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The cumulative effect of admission made by respondent No.7

and copy of sale deed dated 01.11.2012 produced by the petitioner is

sufficient to conclude that the petitioner's predecessors in title

purchased Ac.0.15 cts in Sy.No.821 and 822 situated at Nandigama,

Krishna Distridct from respondent No.7 in public auction and the

same was approved by the Commissioner of Endowments. When

once the property is sold in the public auction after following due

procedure prescribed under law, respondent No.7 ceased to be the

owner of the land and the purchaser acquire title to the land.

Thereafter, there are several sale transactions among predecessors in

title of the petitioner. Therefore, the document produced by the

petitioner pertaining to the land sold by respondent No.7 to various

persons, predecessors in title of the petitioner is sufficient to

conclude that the property is not an endowment property.

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 MSM,J wp_429_2017

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

R.Dis.No.M1/33560/1996 dated 11.09.1996. 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.

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 property measuring Ac.0.15 cents in

Sy.No.821 and 822, Plot No.1 situated at Nandigama Town 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.0.15 cents in Sy.No.821 and 822, Plot No.1 situated at

Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District as the same belongs

to respondent No.7 temple, as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, MSM,J wp_429_2017

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