Vn Venkataramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1881 AP

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                WRIT PETITION No.8130 of 2022
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned

Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent

Nos.1 to 3; Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of

respondent Nos.5 to 8 in not allotting the alternative lands to the

petitioners and declaring the action of the 4th respondent in

proposing to conduct the public auction for the lands under the

possession of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.66.00 cents in

R.S.No.901 situated in Ganjivaripalli Village, H/o. Vepamanipeta

Village, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District, as illegal, arbitrary

and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent

temple is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural lands in

an extent of Ac.88.45 cents in R.S.No.901 situated in Ganjivaripalli

Village, H/o. Vepamanipeta Village, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur

District. The said lands are cultivating by the villagers upon the

lease granted by the 4th respondent temple. While so, the

petitioners herein are also permanent residents of the said village

and they belonging to depressed class i.e., dalith community and

all are landless poor persons and eking out their livelihood by

working as agricultural coolies. Then they made an application to

the 5th respondent-Corporation herein for providing small extents

of agricultural lands for eking out their livelihood by doing

agricultural operations. The 5th respondent-Corporation is a

statutory Corporation constituted by the 1st respondent with an

object of upliftment of dalith community, more particularly,

scheduled castes community. Since the Corporation is working

with that object, the representation of the petitioners was

considered and addressed to the 6th respondent herein for

providing small extent of agricultural lands in favour of the

petitioners herein. Pursuant to the said representation, the 6th

respondent acted upon and identified the lands of the 4th

respondent temple in an extent of Ac.66.00 cents out of Ac.88.45

cents. Later, the 5th respondent-Corporation resolved to purchase

the said lands as identified by the 6th respondent after getting

necessary permissions from the authorities concerned and

deposited 80% of the total amount. After such deposit of amount

with the account of the 4th respondent temple, the 4th respondent

temple handed over the possession of the said lands to the 5th

respondent- Corporation and the same was distributed to the

petitioners and others totaling to 45 members as per the procedure

of the 5th respondent.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that

since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said

lands by way of cultivating the said lands by the respective

allottees. He further contended that for one reason or other, the

remaining amount of 20% did not pay by the 5th respondent-

Corporation and the registration of the lands by the 4th respondent

was not taken place as per the terms of the allotment.

5. While the matter stood thus, one G.Srinivasulu, who is an

Archaka and devotee of 4th respondent temple, filed Writ Petition

No.10386 of 2021 declaring the proposed sale of the lands in

favour of the 5th respondent-Corporation by the 4th respondent

temple, as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Andhra

Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 30 of 1987 (for short, „the Act 30 of 1987‟). The

petitioner in the above writ petition also filed another Writ Petition

No.14389 of 2021 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities

therein for conducting public auction in respect of leasehold rights

over the lands of the 4th respondent temple. Then this Court heard

the said writ petitions and passed a common order dated

14.09.2021 wherein it is held at para Nos.17, 18 and 19 as under:

"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, 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."

6. Aggrieved by the orders of this Court dated 14.09.2021 in

the said writ petitions, the 5th respondent-Corporation and one of

the allottees of the land Smt. C.Adilakshmamma filed Writ Appeal

Nos.823 and 867 of 2021 on the ground that the learned Single

Judge erroneously set aside the proposed alienation of the land of

4th respondent temple in favour of the 5th respondent, which is bad

and illegal. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the

matters, choose to pass a common order dated 23.12.2021,

wherein it is held at para Nos.15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as under:

"15. In the present case, no such procedure is followed more particularly under section 80(1)(b) of the Act. On the other hand, the decision taken by the Executive Officer of the temple is contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Chenchu Rami Reddy, at paragraph No.5, which read as under:

"5. We, therefore, direct that the lands in question may be sold by public auction in the following manner:

(1) sale must be on the basis of "as-is-where is-

whatever is" subject to the rights, if any, of any of the respondents and of the other occupants, if any, in regard to the claim for alleged tenancy, sub-tenancy, possession or of any other nature.

(2) wide publicity should be given to the date, time and place of public auction to ensure that maximum number of intending purchasers attend the auction in order to offer their bids.

(3) The terms and conditions must inter alia provide for deposit of atleast 15% of the sale price in cash within a week (or two weeks) which will be liable to be forfeited if the transaction is not completed.

(4) special notice shall be given to the appellants And the concerned respondents herein.

(5) the appellants' offer made in this Court for purchase at the rate of Rs.2,50,000 per acre on the condition specified in clause (1) herein will be treated as the minimum bid of the appellants and the sum of Rs. 20,00,000 deposited in this Court (which will be transmitted to the Commissioner, Endowment in due course), shall be treated as the deposit made by them in pursuance to clause (3) herein.

(6) The other terms and conditions may be such as are usually incorporated in such public auctions by the Commissioner who shall specify them along with the above mentioned terms in the public notice."

18. Though the proposed sale is in favour of S.C. Corporation a government institution, still procedural compliance for sale of temple land is mandatory as the Act did not have any distinction between purchase by government institution or private individual. Apart from that, sale of land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre is beyond imagination since the price is too low and not beneficial to the temple prima facie.

19. In view of the above and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the proposed sale transaction of the subject land admeasuring Ac.66.00 cents at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre by way of private negotiations, as apparent, to the S.C Corporation is

totally in contravention of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act and the law down by the Apex Court.

20. It is the contention of the appellants in W.A.No.867 of 2021 that they are in possession of the property and auction cannot be conducted without evicting them by following due process of law. But there is no material to establish that they are in lawful possession of the subject land as on date. In such circumstances, this Court cannot exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the appellants as it was not the issue in intra-court appeal.

21. On overall consideration of the circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

22. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications, shall stand dismissed."

7. After the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal

Nos.823 and 867 of 2021, the petitioners herein filed the present

writ petition seeking a direction to the 4th respondent not to

conduct public auction and not to interfere with the possession of

the petitioners in their respective lands in an extent of Ac.66.00

cents situated in R.S.No.901 of the 4th respondent temple.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments as well as

learned Government Pleader for Revenue and also learned

Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent temple contended that the

alleged sale transaction is against the provisions of the Act 30 of

1987 as well as the judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court

and this Court. Accordingly, this Court rightly allowed the writ

petitions and the same were confirmed by the Division Bench of

this Court as mentioned above.

9. In these circumstances, having considered the pathetic

situation of the writ petitioners herein, this Court is inclined to

grant liberty to the petitioners for filing review petitions before the

concerned Court for getting modification of the judgments rendered

by this Court. As a matter of fact, the 4th respondent temple is not

in a position to conduct public auction in respect of the lands,

which are proposed for alienation in favour of the petitioners by

way of sale, since the temple could not handover the possession of

the said lands to the successful bidders of the auction.

10. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that even though the temple tried to conduct public

auction for granting leasehold rights in respect of the said lands,

due to possession of the petitioners, the auction could not become

fruitful and further requested in view of the observations and

suggestions made by this Court in the above writ petitions, the

petitioners should provide alternative lands by the 5th respondent-

Corporation and till then, their possession should be continued

and they shall be evicted from the respective lands by way of

following procedure as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act

30 of 1987.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the

petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings, more particularly,

by way of review petitions before the concerned Court seeking

appropriate relief and further directing the 4th respondent herein to

conduct public auction in respect of the lands, within the

possession of the temple, but the lands, which are in possession

and enjoyment of the petitioners herein, shall be vacated by way of

the procedure as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act 30 of

1987. Till then, the public auction in respect of the lands held by

the petitioners by way of physical possession cannot be conducted.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

Date: 20.04.2022 Ivd

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION No.8130 of 2022

Date: 20.04.2022

Ivd