G.Santaram Died Per Lr vs The Deputy Commissioner, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 719 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

          WRIT PETITION No.15485 of 2010
ORDER:-

     The petitioners claim ownership of Ac.1.74 cents of land

in R.S.No.272/1 of Dhawaleswaram Village, East Godavari

District. This land is said to be part of a fish tank excavated

by the petitioners over this piece of land along with the

neighbouring extents of land which are owned by the

petitioner. It is stated that the fish tank had been excavated

over an extent of Ac.4.50 cents including the aforesaid Ac.1.74

cents. The petitioners submit that the title of this land can be

traced to one Katakam family of Rajahmundry. It is stated that

one Katakam Seethaiah sold the land to one Battula Veerraju,

by way of a Registered Deed of Sale dated 01.06.1949.        Sri

Battula Veerraju, in turn, sold this land by way of a Registered

Deed of Sale dated 22.08.1953 to Grandhi Sriramulu, who had

thereupon sold this land to Akula Gurranna, by way of a

registered deed of sale dated 13.06.1959.      Thereafter, this

property was purchased by the 1st petitioner from the Akula

family, by way of a Registered Deed of Sale dated 19.05.1980.


     2.    At that stage, the 3rd respondent had initiated

O.A.No.171 of 1994 under Section 83 of The Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987) before the 1st respondent,

who had allowed the said O.A. holding that the land belonged

RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010

to the 3rd respondent-temple and directed the 1st petitioner to

handover the said land to the 3rd respondent.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 13.03.2007, the

1st petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present

writ petition.

4. The 1st petitioner had passed away during the

pendency of the writ petition and the 2nd petitioner was

impleaded as his legal representative.

5. Sri W.B.Srinivas learned counsel, appearing for

the petitioners submits that the order under challenge is a

non speaking order has no reasons being set out in the said

order. He would draw the attention of this Court to the

contents of the impugned order dated 13.03.2007, to contend

that the 1st respondent after stating that the order was being

passed in consideration of the material record placed before

him, simply held that the 1st petitioner was an encroacher who

was in occupation of the premises without any valid lease and

directed the petitioner to remove his encroachment within 30

days from the date of receipt of the order, and hand over the

land to the 3rd respondent, failing which, action would be

taken against the 1st petitioner.

6. Sri W.B.Srinivas learned counsel, appearing for

the petitioners would submit that the said order did not

consider any of the material placed by the petitioner before the

1st respondent. Going to the question of whether the 3rd

RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010

respondent-temple had any title to the property, Sri

W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw

the attention of this Court to Ex.P.11, filed into this court,

which is the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.212 of 1937

passed on 10.03.1941 by the District Munsif, Rajahmundry.

It is said that this Judgment, to which the 3rd respondent

temple was a party, confirmed the title of Sri Katakam @

Ramachandrapurapu Seethaiah over the aforesaid property.

He submits that this is the same Seethaiah from whom title is

traced by the Petitioners.

7. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments

draws the attention of this Court to Ex.A.7 dated 19.01.2003

in which, the petitioner is said to have made a representation

to the 1st respondent stating that the 1st petitioner had been

cheated into purchasing the said land and that the 1st

petitioner was willing to repurchase the said land from the 3rd

respondent.

8. The learned Government Pleader would submit

that in view of the above said letter which has been mentioned

in the order, the 1st respondent had held that the land

belonged to the 3rd respondent-temple and that the petitioner

was an encroacher. She submits that in view of this finding, it

cannot be said that there were no reasons given by the 1st

respondent in the impugned order.

RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010

9. Sri W.B.Srinivas learned counsel, appearing for

the petitioners in reply to this contention, submits that the

said letter had been drafted in order to buy peace and not as

an admission of law of title over the land. He submits that in

view of the decision of the District Munsif, Rajahmundry in the

year 1941, the 3rd respondent-temple had lost title to the

property and the same will not revive on a mere admission of

the petitioners herein.

10. The petitioners rely on the Judgment of the

District Munsif, Rajahmundry passed in the year 1941, to

claim that the 3rd respondent-temple had lost its title and right

over the property. The 3rd respondent relies upon the entries

made in the register which shows that this property is entered

in the register and also the revenue records which show that

the temple is the owner of the land. It appears that the

petitioners had not placed the Judgment of the District Munsif

before the 1st respondent.

11. The petitioners have approached this Court, by

way of the present writ petition on the ground that the

impugned order of the 1st respondent does not contain any

reasons and as such is a violation of principles of natural

justice, which requires to be set aside by this Court. A

perusal of the order would show that the 1st respondent

recorded various facts, including the contents of Ex.A.7 letter

and the admission of the petitioner that he had sent that

letter. However, the 1st Respondent has not chosen to discuss

RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010

any of this material and simply gave a finding of fact. The

order does not appear to contain any reasons, except to say

that the 1st Respondent considered all the facts and material.

Consequently, it must be held that principles of natural

justice have been breached.

12. In these circumstances, to ensure that a proper

decision is taken in the matter, it would be appropriate to set

aside the impugned order and remand the matter. As the

power to conduct such enquiries has now been withdrawn

from the Deputy Commissioners and entrusted to the

Endowment Tribunal, under Section 87 of the Endowments

Act, 1987, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the

Endowment Tribunal to consider the entire case after giving

an opportunity of hearing and of adducing evidence to the

petitioners herein.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting

aside the order No.85 of 2007 JDL dated 13.03.2007 of the 1st

respondent i.e., Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.171 of 1994

and the proceedings are remanded to the A.P. Endowments

Tribunal, for a fresh enquiry and decision, after due notice

and opportunity being given to the 2nd Petitioner.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 09.02.2022 RJS

RRR,J W.P.No.15485 of 2010

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.15485 of 2010

Date : 09.02.2022

RJS