Challa Hari Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7961 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                           WRIT PETITION No.29459 of 2022

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 in trying to construct the Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in the land belongs to 4th respondent's temple in an extent of Ac.0.05½ cents in Survey No.69 of Lingamgunta village, which was notified under Section 22 (A) (1)( c) of the Registration Act, by the Endowments Department under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987, being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.5 to 8 not to construct the Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in the land belongs to 4th respondent's temple in an extent of Ac.0.05 ½ cents in Survey No.69 of Lingamgunta village, and pass such other order of orders...."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of

Lingamgunta village and they used to eak out their livelihood by attending

agricultural operations in their respective lands. All the petitioners are

having agricultural lands and cultivating the same by drawing water from

the Nagarjuna Sagar right canal. It is the case of the petitioners that many

temples are situated in their village viz., Chennakesava Swamy temple,

Anjaneya Swamy temple and Kasi Visweswara Swamy temple were

registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu

Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Act'). It is further stated that the petitioners are all devotees of the

group of temples. While so, Lord Subrahmanyeswara Swamy temple and

Sai Baba temple were constructed in the vacant site in between

Chennakesava Swamy temple and Kasi Visweswara Swamy temple about 60

and 25 years back respectively.

(ii) It is further stated that all the temples stated above are situated

in survey No.69 of their village in an extent of Ac.0.68 cents, the same was

notified by the Endowments Department through its Notification issued by

2nd respondent, dated 06.05.2014 and 04.06.2016 respectively. The above

said extent of land was kept in the list of Prohibited Properties.

(iii) It is further stated that the entire village of Lingamgunta is

situated in survey No.69 and the temples are situated middle of the village.

No vacant land is available abutting to the group of temples on all sides

except southern side of the group of temples. The vacant site abutting to

southern side of the group of temples is approximately Ac.0.37 cents, out of

Ac.0.68 cents in survey No.69 and the same is being used for conducting

festivals relating to all the temples, performing rituals and other related

programmes. Apart from that, the subject land was notified as Endowment

property under Section 43 of the Act.

(iv) While the things stood thus, respondent Nos.6 to 8 proposed to

construct Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in some part of the

said land in survey No.69. Even though the petitioners along with others

represented the authorities not to convert the Endowment land for the

purpose of other public utility without there being any authority, but the

respondent authorities are proceedings with the construction. Hence, the

Writ Petition.

3. 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 for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4,

learned Government Pleader for revenue appearing for respondent Nos.5 and

6 and Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat

appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land in survey

No.69 of Lingamgunta village was classified as 'Endowment Land' under

Section 43 of the Act and the same is vested with respondent Nos.1 to 4

herein. Without there being any permission from respondent Nos.1 to 3 and

more so, without prior permission from this Court, in view of the judgment

rendered by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 07.06.2005

in Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005 in respect of utilization of Endowment

land cannot be allowed and any alienation to that effect is void ab initio.

However, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are trying to construct Village Secretariat

and Rythu Barosa Kendram. He further submits that as per RSR/Re-

settlement Register, the land in survey No.69 was classified as 'Grama

Kantam land'. Later, some part of the land in survey No.69 was notified as

'Endowment land' after following the due procedure as contemplated under

Section 43 of the Act. He further submits that since it is the Endowment

land, it cannot be converted for any other purpose without there being prior

permission from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also from this Court. Hence,

he prays the Court to direct the respondent Nos.6 to 8 not to construct the

Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in the subject land.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 would submit

that the Gram Panchayat, Lingamgunta resolved to construct Village

Secretariat at vacant site in Survey No.69 and Rythu Barosa Kendram in

Survey No.71 which is classified as 'Donka' vide Resolution No.4 dated

03.08.2022. In view of the resolution of Gram Panchayat, the construction

of Village Secretariat as well as Rythu Barosa Kendram cannot be stopped,

as they both are meant for public purpose and more over, the land in which

the proposed construction is carrying was classified as 'Grama Kantam

land', which is vested with respondent No.8-Gram Panchayat and not

belongs to Endowment Department as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore,

the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent

Nos.5 and 6 submitted written instructions dated 16.09.2022, wherein it is

stated that the land in survey No.69 identified for construction for Village

Secretariat which is classified as 'Village site' and it is observed that some

extent of village site in survey No.69 was entered in the List of Prohibited

Properties i.e., an extent of 7820 sq ft in favour of Sri Chennakesawa Swamy

temple, 5478 sq ft in favour of Sri Kasi visweswara Swamy temple and

12255 sq ft in favour of Sri Bala Subrahmanyeswara Swamy temple and

3780 sq ft in favour of Archaka quarters. The land identified for proposed

construction of Village Secretariat is an extent of Ac.0.06 cents i.e.,

approximately 2600 sq ft of land, but out of the said land, 1306 sq ft

(Ac.0.03 cents) only is covered in Endowment Property and the remaining

Ac.0.03 cents is not covered in the Endowment Property. The respondent

Nos.5 and 6 will not interfere with the possession of 1306 sq ft temple land

which entered in List of Prohibited Properties and they will move and

construct the Village Secretariat in the remaining vacant site or any other

suitable site which is available in the village site in Survey No.69.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments as well as learned

standing counsel for Endowments did not prefer to file counters, but

submitted that the land in survey No.69 was notified as 'Endowment land'

under the provisions of the Endowment Act 1987. It is further submitted

that once the land was notified as Endowment land, without prior

permission of this Court, the Endowment Land cannot be utilized for any

other purpose by any other department including the 1 st respondent-State.

Therefore, the proposed construction cannot be permitted at the vacant site

of Endowment Land without prior permission from this Court.

8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Government Pleader for Endowments that some part of the land in

survey No.69 belongs to Endowment Department is an admitted fact in view

of the Notification under Section 43 of the Act. The other contention of both

the counsel that once the land is notified as Endowment Land, without prior

permission of this Court, it cannot be converted for any other purpose in

view of the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by the Composite High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005. The other contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the vacant site of the

Endowment Department, where the religious rituals and customs have been

performing by the villagers since decades, cannot be deprived of by allowing

these constructions is also sustainable. The contentions of learned

Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned standing counsel for

Gram Panchayat that due to non-availability of suitable Government land in

the village and in view of the administrative sanction for construction of

Village Secretariat and Rytu Barosa Kendram by respondent No.5 and also

in view of the resolution of Gram Panchayat for such constructions at

subject place should be allowed are not tenable. The other contention of

learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the proposed constructions

are meant for public purpose and part of Endowment Land is being

occupied for subject construction, which is a small extent, there is no

necessity of any prior permission either from the Endowments Department

or from this Court, is also not tenable. The contention of respondent Nos.7

and 8 that the Gram Panchayat specifically resolved for subject

constructions, since the subject land is more suitable, which meant for

entire village and the said construction cannot be stopped on the guise of

Endowment Land, is in violation of the Law.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, admittedly, the respondent Nos.5

to 8 did not obtain any prior permission from this Court for making such

constructions as required in view of the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by

the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11812 of

2005. Since part of the subject land for construction of Village Secretariat is

notified as 'Endowment land', it cannot be make use for any other purpose.

Hence, the proposed construction of Village Secretariat in survey No.69 of

the village cannot be allowed, but whereas the subject Rythu Barosa

Kendram is at survey No.71, which is classified as 'Donka' and vested with

the 8th respondent-Gram Panchayat, the construction of Rythu Barosa

Kendram is not at the wish of the respondent authorities for the reason that

the classification of land as 'Donka, it comes under the category of

Community Land, for which the change of nature of land is required from

the 1st respondent-State as per Law. Without doing the same, the

construction itself is illegal and unauthorised only.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent

Nos.5 to 8 not to construct the Village Secretariat in Survey No.69 of

Lingamgunta village. So far as the construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram

is concerned, the land identified for that purpose is at survey No.71 of

Lingamgunta village, which is classified as 'Donka', the procedure stated

above shall adhere to by the respondent authorities. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition shall stand closed.

                                          ______________________________________
                                          VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

Date:    .10.2022
MP






     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA




              WRIT PETITION No.29459 of 2022



                     Dated: 19.10.2022




MP