Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gummadi Venkata Ratnam, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
1
APHC010141662015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2425/2015
Between:
Gummadi Venkata Ratnam, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
3. KANDA SRINIVASU SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (KS AND WG)
4. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
"to issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the
respondents specially the 3rd respondent in intending to conduct public
auction on 06.02.2015 in respect of agricultural lands in S.No.131/3 to
an extent of Ac.0.70 cents out of total extent of Ac.2.29 cents
Vasanthavada Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District
along with other properties though the lands do not belongs to the 3 rd
respondent temple is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural
justice contrary to the provisions of A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and the Rules made there
under and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently
desist the 3rd respondent to proceed with the auction in respect of
lands in S.No.131/3 to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents out of total extent of
Ac.2.29 cents in Vasanthavada Village, Atreyapuram Mandal."
2. The case of the petitioner is that one Gummadi Venkata Swamy
purchased lands in Sy.No.131/3 to an extent of Ac.2.29 cents in
Vasanthavada Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District by way of
Registered Sale Deeds, from the original owners i.e., the family of Patta
Padmavathi and others. Mr G.Venkata Swamy has bequeathed the property
to his brothers sons G.Narasimha Murthy, Subba Rao and his sister's son
Ammanna. In 27.4.1985, a registered partition had taken place between
G.Narasimha Murthy wife of Subba Rao and Ammanna as on the date of
partition, Subba Rao is no more. In the said partition, the petitioner was
allotted B schedule property ie., to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.2-29,
Vasanthavada Village, Atreyapuam Mandal, East Godavari District. Since
then, the petitioner is irrigating the land and pattadar pass books and title
deeds are issued by the Revenue officials. While so, the petitioner received
notice through the Village Servant of Vasanthavada Village to attend Revenue
sadassu on 24.07.2000 before the M.R.O, Atreyapuram, the 4th respondent
herein. The petitioner attended the office of the 4th respondent along with
others and submitted all the relevant papers pertaining to the land, but he did
not receive any further communication from the revenue officials. While the
matter stood thus, the executive officer of the 3rd respondent-temple got
published a pamphlet stating that the temple is proposing to conduct auction
on 06.02.2015 in respect of the lands of the temple for a period of three years
commencing from 2015-16 to 2017-18 in which the land of the petitioner was
added. As such, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities
questioning why their lands were added in the auction notice. But the 3 rd
respondent proclaimed that he will proceed with the auction and dispossess
the petitioner from the subject lands. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the
subject property stands in the name of the 4th respondent temple as per the
entries in the Section 43 Register, the Resurvey and Settlement Register(RS)
and as per the surrender deed No.757/1945, dated 08.04.1945. The
contention of the petitioner that the lands are private lands purchased and
enjoyed through proper registered sale deeds cannot be accepted, as the
subject lands stands in the name of the temple as per the entries in Section 43
register prepared under Act 30/87. It is further stated in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Andhra Pradesh
Hon'ble Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of Act 30/87. But, without
availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing
Writ Petition, which is not maintainable.
4. Heard Mr T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Assistant Government for Endowments appearing for the
respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
matter is squarely covered by a order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1605 of
2015 and batch, dated 09.08.2019, and hence, requests this Court to pass
similar order in this petition also.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing
for the respondents submits that Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a
person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed to do so and it cannot
be issued merely because a person is praying for. He further submits that the
Writ Petition is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. In
support of his contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader places
reliance on the following Apex Court Judgments which reads as follows:-
In "State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. 8" the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as follows:
"10. ...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by
the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to
the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the
mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date
of the petition.
In "Union of India v. S.B. Vohra" the Supreme Court considered the
said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person,
the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ
of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to
perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.
In "Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain10" the Supreme
Court held thus:
"The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued
have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal
Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-
Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually
issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name
of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or
inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some
particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their
office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus
is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the
official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific
legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal
right to have performed.
Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound
judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain,
positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and
imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to
perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific
legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.
The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of
public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and
inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their
jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be
imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of
a common law duty.
Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance
unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court,
subject always to the well settled principles which have been
established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed
by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on
one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and
judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is
classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by
equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and
should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-
an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving
for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing
facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It
is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding
facts and circumstances."
7. In view of the law declared in the above Apex Court Judgments and
taking into consideration the submission made by both the learned counsels,
this Court is not inclined to issue Writ of Mandamus and deems fit to dispose
of the present Writ Petition in terms of the order in W.P.No.1605 of 2015 and
batch, dated 09.08.2019.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the
petitioner to approach the competent Court. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand
closed.
________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 05.08.2024
TM
