Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.K.Veera Venkata Rajeswari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
***
W.P.No.772 of 2022
BETWEEN:
# 1. Smt. K. Veera Venkata Rajeswari, W/o. Syed Babji,
R/o. Flat No.505, M.V.V. Palace, B.S. Layout,
Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530013.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
(Endowments) Department, Secrretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of A.P.,
Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, rep. by its
Executive Officer, Simhachalam Visakhapatnam District.
4. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing
Director Sri B. Narendra Kimar, Door No.17-38, Ganesh Nagar, Ward
No.14, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
5. Sri Mallidi Sri Hari Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, S/o.
Satyanarayana Reddy, G-2, Elegance Enclave, Facer Layout, Kailash
Metta, Visakhapatnam.
6. Sri Taddi Surya Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.
D.No.50-21-30, A.B.S. Layout, Near hanuman Temple,
Seethammadhara, P & T Colony, Visakhapatnam.
7. Smt. Taddi Sitamahalakshmi, W/o. Late Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o.
31-51-5/69, Green City, Yadava Jaggaraju Peta, Kurmannapalem,
Gajuwaka, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam.
8. Sri Tadi Sarat, S/o. Late Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o.
31-51-5/69, Green City, Yadava Jaggaraju Peta, Kurmannapalem,
Gajuwaka, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam.
9. Smt. Sathi Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Late Ramachandra Reddy, R/o.
D.No.5-81, Vinayaka Temple Street, Kuthukuluru, Anaparthi, East
Godavari District.
10. Sri Sathi Vamsi Krishna, S/o. Late Ramachanra Reddy R/o.
D.No.5-81, Vinayaka Temple Street, Kuthukuluru, Anaparthi, East
Godavari District.
11. Malladi Bhagya Sai Srija, D/o. chakravarthy, R/o. 55-14-41,
A.P.S.E.B. Colony, Near Alluri Seeta Rama Raju Statue,
Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
12. Sri Malladi Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Satti Reddy, R/o. 10-51-
12/17, G-2 Elegance Enclave, Near latha Hospital Road, Facer Layout,
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
Kailash Metta, Visakhapatnam.
13. Smt. Tadi Bhavani, W/o. Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. D.No.5-234,
Sathivari Street, Anaparthi, East Godavari District.
14. Sri Tadi Venkata Reddy, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.
D.No.43-17-7, T.S.N. Colony, Sampatsai Lakshmi Rao Nilayam,
Dondaparthy, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.
15. Sri Rudraraju Siva Rama Krishna Raju, S/o. Late Sri Bala Vijaya
Venkata Narasimha Raju, R/o. 49-54-6/17/5, Sai Sri Residency,
Balayya Sastri Layout, Near Presidential School Road,
Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
16. Sri Tamalapudi Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o. Late Bami Reddy, R/o.
D.No.55-42-3/3, Plot No.39, Doctors Colony, North Extension, 4th
Town Area, Visakhapatnam.
17. Smt. Tamalapudi Gandavati, W/o. Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o.
D.No.55-42-3/3, Plot No.39, Doctors Colony, North Extension, 4th
Town Area, Visakhapatnam.
18. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC)
Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner.
... RESPONDENTS
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 30.09.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.No.772 of 2022
% Dated:30.09.2022
BETWEEN:
# 1. Smt. K. Veera Venkata Rajeswari, W/o. Syed Babji,
R/o. Flat No.505, M.V.V. Palace, B.S. Layout,
Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530013.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
(Endowments) Department, Secrretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of A.P.,
Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, rep. by its
Executive Officer, Simhachalam Visakhapatnam District.
4. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing
Director Sri B. Narendra Kimar, Door No.17-38, Ganesh Nagar, Ward
No.14, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
5. Sri Mallidi Sri Hari Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, S/o.
Satyanarayana Reddy, G-2, Elegance Enclave, Facer Layout, Kailash
Metta, Visakhapatnam.
6. Sri Taddi Surya Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.
D.No.50-21-30, A.B.S. Layout, Near hanuman Temple,
Seethammadhara, P & T Colony, Visakhapatnam.
7. Smt. Taddi Sitamahalakshmi, W/o. Late Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o.
31-51-5/69, Green City, Yadava Jaggaraju Peta, Kurmannapalem,
Gajuwaka, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam.
8. Sri Tadi Sarat, S/o. Late Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o.
31-51-5/69, Green City, Yadava Jaggaraju Peta, Kurmannapalem,
Gajuwaka, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam.
9. Smt. Sathi Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Late Ramachandra Reddy, R/o.
D.No.5-81, Vinayaka Temple Street, Kuthukuluru, Anaparthi, East
Godavari District.
10. Sri Sathi Vamsi Krishna, S/o. Late Ramachanra Reddy R/o.
D.No.5-81, Vinayaka Temple Street, Kuthukuluru, Anaparthi, East
Godavari District.
11. Malladi Bhagya Sai Srija, D/o. chakravarthy, R/o. 55-14-41,
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
A.P.S.E.B. Colony, Near Alluri Seeta Rama Raju Statue,
Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
12. Sri Malladi Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Satti Reddy, R/o. 10-51-
12/17, G-2 Elegance Enclave, Near latha Hospital Road, Facer Layout,
Kailash Metta, Visakhapatnam.
13. Smt. Tadi Bhavani, W/o. Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. D.No.5-234,
Sathivari Street, Anaparthi, East Godavari District.
14. Sri Tadi Venkata Reddy, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.
D.No.43-17-7, T.S.N. Colony, Sampatsai Lakshmi Rao Nilayam,
Dondaparthy, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.
15. Sri Rudraraju Siva Rama Krishna Raju, S/o. Late Sri Bala Vijaya
Venkata Narasimha Raju, R/o. 49-54-6/17/5, Sai Sri Residency,
Balayya Sastri Layout, Near Presidential School Road,
Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
16. Sri Tamalapudi Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o. Late Bami Reddy, R/o.
D.No.55-42-3/3, Plot No.39, Doctors Colony, North Extension, 4th
Town Area, Visakhapatnam.
17. Smt. Tamalapudi Gandavati, W/o. Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o.
D.No.55-42-3/3, Plot No.39, Doctors Colony, North Extension, 4th
Town Area, Visakhapatnam.
18. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC)
Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner.
... RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P. Roy Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : G.P. for Endowments
^Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Sri K. Madhava Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent No.18 : Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. AIR 1980 AP 118
2. AIR 1980 AP 118
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.772 of 2022
ORDER:
The respondents 4 to 17 had claimed title and possession over
various plots of land located in "MVN Layout" in Sy.No.275/D1
(Sy.No.275P) of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District. The entire land in the said survey number was
claimed by the 3rd respondent-temple on the basis of the proceedings
under the Inam Abolition Act as well as G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 20.06.2000.
In view of long pending litigation, the Government had enquired into the
matter and had come up with G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 for
regularisation of the ownership over the plots which were being claimed
by both the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam as well as the persons in
occupation of the said plots. This government order permitted the
Devasthanam to regularise the ownership and possession of the persons
over the lands, which were in their possession, on payment of
consideration in accordance with the stipulations set out in the
Government Order. (It appears that some of the respondents 4 to 17 were
not the persons, in favour of whom land regularisation certificates were
issued by the 3rd respondent, and they are claiming through the persons
who had received such certificates. These claims are on the basis of the
said respondents being the legal heirs of the persons who had been
granted these land regularisation certificates or the persons who had
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
otherwise obtained title over the plots from the persons who had been
granted regularisation certificates. For ease of convenience it is being
recorded that it is respondents 4 to 17 who had obtained the certificates
and any reference in the order shall be treated as reference to the
predecessors of these respondents also.
2. The plots owned by these respondents were regularised by
the 3rd respondent, who issued regularisation certificates to all these
persons. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 17 had made a request to the
Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent for shifting of their plots into one
contiguous bit owned by the temple, in exchange for taking over the plots
regularised in favour of the respondents 4 to 17. This request was
forwarded by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to the 2nd
respondent-Commissioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner
forwarded the request to the 1st respondent, who issued Memo
No.368766/Endts.II (1)/2016, dated 22.02.2017 permitting the Executive
Officer to exchange 2919.20 sq. yards of the 3rd respondent-temple with
various bits of regularised land admeasuring 2928.77 sq. yards of land .
The land given to respondents 4 to 17 is said to be in "B block" along with
roads on four sides.
3. In pursuance of this Memo, the 3rd respondent and the
respondents 4 to 17 executed a deed of exchange on 31.12.2019, which
was registered as document No.3645 of 2019 in the office of the Joint
Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam. The respondents 4 to 17 thereupon,
7 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
obtained building permission on 07.10.2021 from Greater Visakhapatnam
Municipal Corporation and sought to commence construction of a building
in this land.
4. At that stage, the petitioner, who claims ownership and
possession over 300 sq yards of land in Plot No.B-7 of MVN Layout,
approached this Court with the complaint that her plot of land was made
part of the land handed over by the 3rd respondent-temple to respondents
4 to 17 and the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of various provisions
of law.
5. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits as follows:
a) The transaction between the 3rd respondent-temple and
respondents 4 to 17 was an "exchange of land" and the same
was in violation of Section 80 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1984 (for short 'the
Endowments Act'). He submits that Section 80 requires
permission to be granted by way of a Government Order and
not by way of a Memo.
b) The procedure set out under Section 80(1)(b) of the Act
requiring invitation of suggestions and consideration of such
objections, was not done.
8 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
c) The consent under Section 80 has to be given by the
Commissioner of Endowments and the Government has no role
in the matter.
d) The Government Business Rules, which differentiated between a
Government Order and a Memo, require such decisions to be
issued by way of a Government Order and not by way of a
Memo and accordingly the said Memo is not in accordance with
the requirements of the Business Rules.
e) Section 2(8) of the A.P. Metropolitan Region Development
Authority Act, 2016 defines development, to include exchange
of plots or amalgamation of plots of land and the same can be
done only after appropriate permission is granted by the
Commissioner under Section 82 of the said Act. In the present
case, no such permission was obtained.
6. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their counter affidavits.
Respondents 4 to 17 have a filed separate counter affidavit.
7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st
respondent would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as
the petitioner has no right or title over the aforesaid 300 sq. yards of land
claimed by her. She submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Visakhapatnam (Rural), by issue of a Ryotwari patta in favour of the 3rd
respondent, in proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act, in No. A.I.A. No.
1/96, dated 18.05.1996 and 2/96 , dated 14.08.1996, had confirmed the
9 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
ownership and title of the 3rd respondent over the entire area of land in
Survey No. 275 of Adavivaram village. The Government had affirmed the
same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.406 dated 20.06.2000, recognising the right
and title of the 3rd respondent. She submits that the petitioner does not
have any right or title over the land and as such the petitioner has no
locus standi to file the present writ petition. She raised the above
submission on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any application
for regularisation of her land under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments would also
submit that even if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted, the
provision of law that would be applicable would be Section 75 of the
Endowments Act and not Section 80, as the lands in question are Inam
lands.
9. She further submits that the transaction in question is not a
transaction of exchange. She contends that the shifting of plots of
respondents 4 to 17 into one contiguous bit was part of the regularisation
process under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 and as such the
provisions of Section 80 would not be applicable to the present case.
10. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the 3rd respondent-temple reiterates the contentions of the learned
Government Pleader and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable
and that in any event the transaction under challenge is not a transaction
10 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
of exchange but it is only a part of the regularisation process initiated
under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000.
11. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 4 to 17, would reiterate the contention that the petitioner has
no locus standi to file the present writ petition as the petitioner has no
right or title over any part of the aforesaid 300 sq. yards of land. He would
further contend that the contention of the petitioner that shifting of the
plots of the petitioner into one contiguous plot would amount to an
exchange, is incorrect. He submits that all necessary permissions including
the building permissions had been obtained by respondents 4 to 17 before
commencing any construction and in any event, the land of the petitioner
does not fall within the contiguous plots which have now been handed
over to respondents 4 to 17. Sri Ashwani Kumar relies upon paragraph-4
of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to contend that the
petitioner had not made any application for regularisation of her plot and
as such she has no right or title over the land and consequently would not
be an aggrieved party.
12. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply,
would point out that the provisions of Section 75 would not be applicable
in the present case, as even according to the respondents proceedings
had culminated in the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated
18.05.1996 and 14.08.1996, and as a ryotwary patta is said to have been
already granted, the question of application of Inam Abolition Act or
11 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
treating the land as Inam land would not arise. He relies upon a Full
Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the case of Nellore
Bujjamma and Anr., vs. The Tahsildar, Rapur and Anr.,1. Answering
the objection relating to the locus of the petitioner, he contends that, even
the respondents cannot claim any title over any part of the land in Sy. No.
275P of Adavivaram Village, as the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.578 dated
19.08.2000, specifically prohibited the regularisation of any land in
Adavivaram village and the regularisation of land by the 3rd respondent
temple on the basis of the above G.O. is in direct violation of the G.O.
itself.
Consideration of the Court:
13. In view of the objections raised by the respondent, the
maintainability of the writ petition would need to be gone into before the
merits of the case can be considered. The case of the respondents is that
the petitioner has no title to the property being claimed by her and as
such cannot be treated as a party aggrieved by the impugned
proceedings. She would have no locus standi, to file the present writ
petition, in the absence of any violation of her rights.
14. The petitioner claims title over the property by virtue of
various transactions under which the property came to her and contends
that the Mandal Revenue Officer proceedings dated 18.05.1996 and
AIR 1980 AP 118
12 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
14.08.1996, and G.O.Ms.No.406 dated 20.06.2000 would not be binding
on her.
15. Without going into the aforesaid issues, this Court, in
exercise of its parrens patriae jurisdiction, can always take up this matter
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is because, the
property, which is in dispute, even according to the respondents, belongs
to the 3rd respondent-temple and this Court under its parrens patriae
jurisdiction is duty bound to consider whether alienation of temple
property is in accordance with law and for the benefit of the
endowment/temple. In the circumstances, this Court, without going into
the question of the rights of the petitioner and the locus of the petitioner,
deems it appropriate to consider the writ petition on its merits. On the
question of the applicability of section 75 of the Act, it must be held that,
in view of the law laid down by the full bench of the erstwhile high court
of Andhra Pradesh in Nellore Bujjamma and Anr., vs. The Tahsildar,
Rapur and Anr.,2 the provisions of section 75 of the Act would not be
applicable to the present case.
16. The case of respondents 4 to 17 is that they were in
occupation of various plots of land in the layout, known as MVN layout in
Sy.No.275/D1 of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District, and that they had obtained land regularisation
AIR 1980 AP 118
13 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
certificates issued under G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue (Endts-IV) Department,
dated 19.08.2000. The respondents are thereby tracing their title to the
land under the regularisation certificates issued in their favour. This stand
of theirs is demonstrated by the following extract of the deed of exchange
executed between respondents 4 to 17 on one side and the 3 rd
respondent-temple on the other, on 31.12.2019.
"WHEREAS the First Party is the sole and absolute owners of
and in possession of the property which is more fully
described in the schedule Á'annexed hereto which is
acquired by virtue of Land Regularisation Certificates issued
in their favour as per G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endts-IV)
Department, dated 19.08.2000 for the un-authorised
occupation of vacant house sites under different Registered
Documents.""
17. G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000, which framed the scheme
for regularisation of encroachments in respect of lands belonging to the
3rd respondent had specifically stipulated in Clause 10(d), which reads as
follows:
10(d) - The regularisation of occupations are not to be
applied to the occupations on the hill in Adivivaram Village
irrespective of the nature of the occupations. The hill should
be cleared of all occupations other than those made by the
Devasthanam or the Government", with the approval of the
Devasthanam, in order to preserve the sanctity of the Hill."
18. This would mean that the 3rd respondent-temple could not
have regularised the lands in favour of respondents 4 to 17 under
14 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 and as such, the land regularisation
certificates are themselves invalid.
19. Sri P. Roy Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that, even otherwise, the exchange of property, under
Memo No.368766/Endts.II(1)/2016 dated 22.02.2017, which is impugned
before this Court along with of the deed of exchange dated 31.12.2019, is
violative of Section 80 of the Endowments Act, which reads as follows:
80. Alienation of immovable property - (1) (a) Any gift,
sale, exchange or mortgage of any immovable property
belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any
charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be null
and void unless any such transaction, not being a gift, is
effected with the prior sanction of the Commissioner.
(b) The Commissioner, may, after publishing in the
Andhra Pradesh Gazette the particulars relating to the
proposed transaction and inviting any objections and
suggestions with respect thereto and considering all
objections and suggestions, if any received from the trustee
or other person having interest, accord such sanction
where he considers that the transaction is-
(i) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the
institution or endowment;
(ii) in respect of immovable property which is un-
economical for the institution or endowment to own
and maintain; and
(iii) the consideration therefor is adequate and
proper.
(c) Every sale of any such immovable property
sanctioned by the Commissioner under clause (b) shall be
effected by tender-cum-public auction in the prescribed
15 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
manner subject to the confirmation by the Commissioner
within a period prescribed:
Provided that the Government may, in the interest of the
institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded
therefor in writing, permit the sale of such immovable
property, otherwise than by public auction:
Provided further that the Government may purchase the
lands situated in Scheduled Areas belonging to institutions
or endowments, wherever necessary, otherwise than by
public auction and assign such lands to the members of the
Scheduled Tribes."
20. The respondents contend that this provision is not applicable
to the facts of the case as the impugned Memo and deed of exchange
were only part of the regularisation provided under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated
19.08.2000.
21. This contention would have to fail on various grounds.
G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 provides for regularisation of land,
which is in unauthorised occupation of third parties. This would mean that
regularisation of land under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 would be
available only to the extent of the land which is in actual occupation of the
third parties. The said G.O. does not authorise handing over of land which
is not in the occupation of third parties. In the present case, the
regularisation of land was completed by handing over the land
regularisation certificates confirming ownership and title in favour of
respondents 4 to 17, over the respective plots, which were in their
16 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
possession. Nothing more can be done under the said G.O., after the plots
had been regularised by way of land regularisation certificates.
22. Apart from this, the impugned deed of exchange, which is
signed by respondents 4 to 17, itself states that respondents 4 to 17 had
become sole and absolute owners by virtue of the land regularisation
certificates issued in their favour earlier. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 17,
as owners of these plots of land, had executed a deed of exchange with
the third respondent. The terms of the said deed of exchange and the title
of the document clearly show that what was contemplated and what was
executed was a deed of exchange only. This transaction cannot be treated
as a further regularisation of property in favour of respondents 4 to 17.
23. As the transaction is a transaction of exchange, the
provisions of Section 80 of the Endowments Act will apply.
24. Under Section 80 of the Endowments Act, any immoveable
property belonging to a charitable religious institution or endowment can
be exchanged only with the prior sanction of the Commissioner and any
exchange done without such prior sanction is null and void. In the present
case, respondents 4 to 17 approached the 3rd respondent with the
proposal of exchange of land and the same was forwarded by the 3rd
respondent to the Commissioner Endowments. Thereafter, the
Commissioner Endowments forwarded the request of the 3rd respondent
for permission to "reorganise" the plots which were previously regularised.
The Government issued the impugned Memo No.368766/Endts.II(1)/
17 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
2016, dated 22.02.2017, permitting the Executive Officer of the 3rd
respondent-temple to exchange the LRC bits regularised in favour of
respondents 4 to 17 with the land of the 3rd respondent-temple in the
neighbouring area. As the permission had been granted by the
Government and not the Commissioner, it would have to be held that the
exchange conducted through the impugned Memo and the impugned
deed of exchange are void.
25. Section 80 of the Endowments Act requires the
Commissioner to publish the particulars relating to any proposed
transaction, mentioned under Section 80, in the A.P. Gazette and invite
objections and suggestions with respect thereto and pass orders only after
considering all the objections and suggestions.
26. In the present case, no such exercise has been conducted.
The specific allegation in this regard made by the petitioners has not been
answered by the respondents by placing the necessary documents before
this Court. In the circumstances, it must be held that the permission said
to have been given by the Government is clearly violative of Section 80 of
the Endowments Act.
27. Section 80 stipulates that permission to carry out any of the
transactions, relating to immoveable property, mentioned in Section 80
requires the approving authority to satisfy itself that the transaction is
prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution of Endowment, apart
from other considerations set out in Section 80 (b) of the Endowments
18 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
Act. A perusal of the impugned Memo dated 22.02.2017 does not show
any such satisfaction being recorded in the Memo. The impugned
exchange of property would have to fail on this ground also.
28. There is a mention, in the impugned deed of exchange dated
31.12.2019 that the exchange of land is beneficial to the 3rd respondent in
view of the physical conditions existing in that location. Such an
observation, in the deed of exchange, would not assist the respondents in
any manner. The said satisfaction has to be reflected in the proceedings in
which permission for such an exchange is granted.
29. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner also
takes an objection to the issuance of a Memo for granting such
permission. He relies upon the Business Rules of the government to
contend that permission of this nature cannot be given by way of a Memo
and such permission can be given only by way of a Government Order.
The said Government Rules stipulate that the Memos are to be issued only
for the purpose of furnishing information and decisions of the
Government, either under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or under
special powers conferred by the Government under various statutes,
would have to be issued by way of a Government order only.
30. In the present case, a decision to permit such exchange of
property could not have been issued by a Memo. The said permission
granted under the impugned Memo would have to fail on this ground also.
19 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
31. The impugned deed of exchange was executed on the basis
of the permission given by the Government under the impugned Memo.
Once the said Memo fails, on various grounds set out above, the
consequential deed of exchange would also fail. It is a settled proposition
of law that where the foundation falls the super structure would also fall.
32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Memo
No.368766/Endts.II(1)/2016, dated 22.02.2017 and the deed of exchange
executed in document No.3645/2019 dated 31.12.2019 are set aside and
the 3rd respondent shall take all consequential steps in pursuance of this
order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
30th September, 2022.
Js.
20 RRR,J
W.P.No.772 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.772 of 2022
30th September, 2022
Js.
