Sri Sambaraju Rayalu Pantulu ... vs Imadabathuni Rama Rao,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3019 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
       HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                          I.A.No.2 of 2021
                                 in
                     WRIT APPEAL No.423 of 2021
                                and
                     WRIT APPEAL No.423 of 2021

Sri Sambaraju Rayalu Pantulu Tank, Etukuru village, Guntur Rural Mandal,
Guntur District, rep. by its Executive Officer-cum-Single Trustee

                                                        ... Applicant/Appellant

                                    Versus

Imadabathuni Rama Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged 56 years, Occ:
Agriculture, R/o. Ananthavarappadu, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur
District, and others
                                                    ... Respondents
                            ORDER

Dt.10.05.2023

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

I.A.No.2 of 2021 has been filed seeking leave to prefer appeal

against the order dated 03.03.3020 passed by the learned single Judge

allowing W.P.No.15349 of 2018 preferred by the writ petitioners seeking

to declare letter R.C.No.M2/9577/2016 dated 08.06.2016 issued by 5th and

6th respondents, concerning the land of the writ petitioners in Sy.Nos.205

and 210 of Etukuru village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District, as tank and

prohibiting registration, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and consequently to

set aside the same and direct the 7th respondent to process registration of

all instruments presented by the parties in respect of the subject land.

                                         2                                HCJ & NJS,J
                                                             I.A.No.2 of 2021 in/and
                                                                 W.A.No.423 of 2021

2. The writ petitioners contended before the learned single Judge that

the subject land not being Government land or temple land, its inclusion in

the prohibited list, is illegal. It is also contended that inclusion in the

prohibited list cannot happen on the basis of a simple communication,

because a detailed procedure is required to be followed for such inclusion,

as held by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in

W.P.No.343 of 2015. They also relied on an order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner of Endowments in O.A.No.202 of 1974 dated 10.01.1977,

holding that the subject land popularly known as Sri Sambaraju Rayalu

Panthulu Tank is not a public charitable institution.

3. Referring to the order of the Deputy Commissioner stated above, as

also the finding that there is absolutely no material to show that the

subject land is an endowment land, learned single Judge concluded that

the impugned letter dated 08.06.2016, is not sustainable in law.

Reference is also made by the learned single Judge to the Full Bench

judgment in W.P.No.343 of 2015, prescribing procedure to be followed for

including the land in the prohibited list, simultaneously holding that no

such procedure as has been prescribed in the said Full Bench judgment

has been followed in the case on hand.

4. The applicant in I.A.No.2 of 2021, seeking leave to prefer the

appeal, claims to be the Executive Officer-cum-Single Trustee of 3 HCJ & NJS,J I.A.No.2 of 2021 in/and W.A.No.423 of 2021

Sri Sambaraju Rayalu Panthulu Tank and on that basis, seeks leave to

protect the endowment land. However, in view of the finding recorded by

the learned single Judge basing upon the order of the Deputy

Commissioner of Endowments dated 10.01.1977 in O.A.No.202 of 1974,

the land, itself, being not an endowment or temple land, the question of

allowing I.A.No.2 of 2021, would not arise. A Single Trustee or an

Executive Officer can challenge the order only when the subject land is

endowment land. A copy of the order passed in O.A.No.202 of 1974, has

been placed on record. In the said order, a categorical finding has been

recorded that the tank is all along known as Sri Sambaraju Rayalu

Panthulu Tank, being a personal tank and in Ex.P.11 produced in the said

proceedings, the civil court held that it is the personal property of the

Inamdar. It is also recorded that even by a reading of the definition of

Charitable Trust and a Trustee under Section 2 of the A.P. Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 (Act 17 of 1966), it

cannot be inferred that Rayala Panthulu was a Trustee and was managing

the property as if it were a Trust Property. It is also held that the tank

has been kept in good condition and if the Inamdars fail to discharge the

obligation, then it is for the Government to resume the grant; it is only the

Ayacutdars that can move the Government for resuming the grant in case

the tank is not maintained properly. Therefore, for all these reasons, it is

held that Sri Sambaraju Rayalu Panthulu Tank in Etukur village is not a 4 HCJ & NJS,J I.A.No.2 of 2021 in/and W.A.No.423 of 2021

public charitable institution and the lands shown in the schedule to the

petition are not charitable endowments under Act 17 of 1966.

5. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the order of the

Deputy Commissioner of Endowments dated 10.01.1977 in O.A.No.202 of

1974 and, thus, the same has become final and binding.

6. In view of the above discussion, since the subject land is not an

endowment land, the applicant has no locus to prefer any appeal and,

therefore, the prayer seeking leave to appeal deserves to be and, is,

hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2021 is dismissed and as a corollary, the

appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

            Sd/-                                         Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                       NINALA JAYASURYA, J

MRR