The Venkatagiri Municipality vs Tallapaneni China Venkayeswarlu
2023 Latest Caselaw 3093 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    WRIT APPEAL No.498 of 2002

Smt. M. Chengamma, W/o. Venkatrama Naidu, died per LRs., and others

                                                               ... Appellants

                                   Versus

V. Nagamani, W/o. Reddeppa Naidu, aged 62 years, R/o. Cherlapalli
village, Pudipatla Post, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, and
others
                                                        ... Respondents
                              JUDGMENT

Dt.12.05.2023

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This intra-court appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent,

would call in question the order dated 29.01.2002 passed by the learned

single Judge in W.P.No.4675 of 1991, setting aside G.O.Ms.No.751 dated

17.08.1990, by which the State Government accorded permission to the

custodian of Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, Chandragiri Taluk,

Chittoor District (hereinafter referred as "the Mutt") for sale of land

admeasuring Ac.25.36 cents belonging to the Mutt at the rate of

Rs.22,000/- per acre in favour of sitting tenants, i.e. an extent of Ac.14.36

cents in Sy.No.51/1 in favour of Smt. M. Changamma and an extent of

Ac.11.00 cents in Sy.No.54/2 in favour of Sri T. Muniswamy Naidu by 2 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.498 of 2002

registered sale deeds dated 25.10.1990 and 15.10.1990 respectively by

relaxing the ban on sale of temple lands.

2. Facts, pithily stated, as projected in the writ affidavit, are that the

appellants were the sitting tenants of the Mutt. Originally, they were

granted permanent lease by the then Mahant, after whose death,

O.S.No.6 of 1966 was filed for cancellation of the lease, which was

decreed declaring that the lease is not valid in law. However, the

appellants continued as tenants under lease deeds executed from time to

time. When the Mahant was suspended in the year 1980, the

Commissioner of Endowments appointed the Assistant Commissioner of

Endowments to be the in-charge of the day-to-day administration of the

Mutt. The Assistant Commissioner proposed sale of certain properties,

aggrieved by which W.P.No.3621 of 1982 was filed and the same was

disposed of on 20.10.1983 directing the official respondents not to sell the

Mutt properties till a person who can competently represent the Mutt, is

appointed. On 04.01.1985, the Commissioner issued a Notification

proposing sale of 11 acres of land, which was opposed by the writ

petitioner on the ground that the land proposed, can be sold only by way

of public auction or through private negotiations and that the proposed

value is very less. It is the case of the writ petitioner that without

considering her objections and without following the procedure

contemplated in law, G.O.Ms.No.751 dated 17.08.1990 was issued by the 3 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.498 of 2002

Government in exercise of powers conferred under the first proviso to

Section 80(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, "the 1987 Act")

according permission to the custodian of the Mutt to sell the subject lands

in favour of sitting tenants, i.e. respondents 4 and 5 (present appellants).

3. The 2nd respondent, Commissioner, Endowments, filed a counter-

affidavit, inter alia, contending that notice dated 23.11.1984 for sale of the

subject lands was issued duly calling for objections, to which the writ

petitioner and one D. Kuppuswami Naidu submitted objections. The

custodian of the Mutt submitted his remarks against the objections stating

that the sitting tenants have improved the value of the lands since after

the year 1957 by incurring huge amounts and by drawing water pipeline

through their own well and also that taking possession of the lands from

the sitting tenants would be a problem for the Mutt, which may also lead

to endless litigation, since they are protected tenants under the provisions

of the A.P. Tenancy Act; therefore, in the interest of the institution and to

avoid possible litigation, the sale is justified. It was further stated in the

counter-affidavit that considering the above circumstances, particularly,

for the fact that sitting tenants are in continuous possession and

enjoyment of the lands since decades by virtue of renewal of lease from

time to time, the impugned G.O. has been issued in accordance with law.

                                      4                              HCJ & RRR,J
                                                              W.A.No.498 of 2002

4. The legal heirs of the sitting tenants/appellants stated that they are

protected tenants and in view of tenancy law, they are entitled to

purchase the lands other than the public auction and the sale has been

allowed after following due procedure protecting the interest of the Mutt,

which does not warrant any interference. Reliance is placed on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitakarini Samaj v. State of

A.P. - 2000 Supreme (SC) 1183.

5. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the

ground that the impugned G.O. has been issued for sale of lands in favour

of the protected tenants otherwise than in public auction and without the

consent of the custodian, which is contrary to the order dated 20.10.1983

passed in W.P.No.3621 of 1982. Learned single Judge would observe that

Government has acted merely upon the recommendations made by the

Commissioner of Endowments without applying its mind to meet the

objections raised by the writ petitioner and without protecting the interest

of the institution; specifically observing that the question of evicting the

tenants from the lands is secondary aspect, the primary being the interest

of the endowment, which has not been taken care of. Therefore,

permission accorded under the impugned G.O. is contrary to the

procedure contemplated under the provisions of law; further observing

that the entire exercise has been made only to protect the interest of the

protected tenants.

                                      5                              HCJ & RRR,J
                                                              W.A.No.498 of 2002

6. Assailing the impugned order of the learned single Judge,

Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the appellants,

would argue that the original Mahant of the Mutt Sri Sarju Doss himself

wrote a letter in Rc.No.425/79-B dated 25.03.1979 proposing sale of the

Mutt lands, which was, thereafter, taken up by the Commissioner.

However, this auction was set aside in W.P.No.3621 of 1982 on the

ground that he has no authority to do so. The Mathadhipathi was under

suspension and there was no person to succeed to the office of the

Mathadhipathi. It is the specific contention of the learned senior counsel

for the appellants that after the order in W.P.No.3621 of 1982, the Deputy

Commissioner of Endowments was appointed as custodian of the Mutt and

the said custodian has forwarded the proposal for sale of lands by his

letter dated 16.03.1984, which has escaped the notice of the learned

single Judge in the impugned order. He would submit that the G.O.

impugned in the writ petition is not in contravention of the order passed in

W.P.No.3621 of 1982. It is also argued that interest of the institution is

not at all affected and that the protected tenants are in possession of the

lands on the strength of the lease regularly executed after 1957 and

onwards. Learned senior counsel would refer to the counter-affidavit filed

by the 2nd respondent setting out in detail the manner in which the

procedure was followed before issuance of the impugned G.O. It is also

put forth that the proposal for sale of lands was sent by the custodian by 6 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.498 of 2002

his letter dated 16.03.1984 and the objections raised by the writ petitioner

and another person, were duly replied by the custodian. Lastly, learned

senior counsel would submit that the finding that there is no application of

mind by the Government, is perverse, being contrary to record in view of

the statement in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent.

7. Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondent No.4, has supported the order passed by the learned single

Judge.

8. In W.P.No.3621 of 1982, challenge was to the proposed sale of

certain properties of the Mutt. After noticing that the Mahant of the Mutt

was suspended and Assistant Commissioner was appointed in place of the

Mahant to attend to the day-to-day affairs of the Mutt and its endowments

temporarily until further orders, further the enquiry against the Mahant is

still pending and in the meanwhile the Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments had proposed the sale of certain properties belonging to the

Mutt, learned single Judge observed that the Assistant Commissioner who

was appointed to attend day-to-day affairs of the Mutt could not have

proposed the sale of the lands. In that situation, writ was issued directing

the respondents not to sell away Mutt properties till a person who can

competently represent the Mutt is appointed. As against this order in the

writ petition, W.A.No.1014 of 1984 was filed, which was closed by order 7 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.498 of 2002

dated 02.12.1987, observing that in view of proceedings

Rc.No.B1/2209/79 dated 26.12.1983 issued by the Commissioner of

Endowments, Hyderabad, no further orders are required to be passed in

the writ appeal.

9. In the proceedings dated 26.11.1983 issued by the Commissioner

of Endowments, as is referred in W.A.No.1014 of 1984, the following is

stated:

"...

In view of the above circumstances and in supercession of the orders issued by the Commissioner in the reference 1st cited and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.8 read with Sec.47 of the Act of 1966, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, AP, Hyderabad hereby appoints Sri G. Krishna Murthy, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department in charge of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math, Tirupati as Custodian of the Math to administer and manage the affairs of the administration of the said math till the successor Matadhipathi assumes charge of the office of the Matadhipathi according to the provisions of the Act of 1966."

10. It is, thus, apparent that the reasons on which the learned single

Judge allowed W.P.No.3621 of 1982 would not exist after the

Commissioner of Endowments issued proceedings dated 26.12.1983

extracted above. In these proceedings, the Commissioner of Endowments

had appointed custodian of the Mutt to manage the affairs of the 8 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.498 of 2002

administration of the said Mutt till the successor Mathadhipathi assumes

charge of the office of the Mathadhipathi. It is nowhere mentioned in

these proceedings that custodian is appointed only to look after the day-

to-day affairs of the Mutt. Instead, custodian is appointed to manage the

affairs of the administration of the Mutt. This expression places the

custodian as the person who is in-charge of the entire administration of

the Mutt, which includes the management of the properties. Insofar as

the observation by the learned single Judge that procedure prescribed

under the 1987 Act has not been followed, suffice it would be to refer the

counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent setting out in detail the entire

procedure followed by inviting objections and meeting out the objections

by calling remarks from the custodian.

11. It is significant to mention that as per the counter-affidavit, which

has not been controverted by filing reply to the counter-affidavit, that

Mahant himself proposed the sale of Mutt lands in his communication

dated 25.03.1979 and, thereafter, the sitting tenants came forward to

regularise their past transactions by way of sale with the prior permission

of the Government subject to payment of market value. On this, the 3rd

respondent forwarded the application to the Commissioner indicating the

price expected by sale at Rs.5,500/- per acre. The Commissioner, after

following prescribed procedure, issued notice inviting objections within 30

days from 23.11.1984 by publication in the A.P. Gazette and Eenadu 9 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.498 of 2002

Telugu Newspaper. Thereafter, the present basic value of the land was

obtained from the Sub-Registrar, who, vide letter dated 18.07.1990,

furnished the basic registration value in Sy.No.51-1 and Sy.No.54/2 wet as

Rs.22,000/- per acre. This fact was submitted to the Commissioner, upon

which the Government issued the impugned G.O. for sale of lands in

favour of the sitting tenants. It cannot be lost sight that the sitting

tenants are in possession of the lands right from 22.08.1957 by virtue of

registered permanent lease deed executed in Sub-Registrar's office,

Tirupathi, by late Sri Narayanadoss, the then Mahant of the Mutt and

further lease was granted to them after cancellation of the permanent

lease. In this view of the matter and considering the long settled

possession, the sitting tenants have become the protected tenants and

the custodian rightly mentioned in the counter-affidavit and in his reply to

the writ petitioner's objection that it is difficult to recover possession from

the protected tenants; therefore, in order to avoid litigation, it is in the

interest of the endowments to sell the lands to raise funds.

12. Since the procedure prescribed under Section 80(1)(c) of the 1987

Act, has been duly followed and the reasoning on the basis of which order

in W.P.No.3621 of 1982 was passed, was removed by issuing subsequent

proceedings dated 26.12.1983, appointing custodian of the Mutt, we are

of the considered view that the learned single Judge ought not to have

interfered in the matter by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.751 dated 17.08.1990.

                                      10                           HCJ & RRR,J
                                                            W.A.No.498 of 2002

13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

learned single Judge is set aside. No order as to costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

             Sd/-                                          Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                     R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

MRR