Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Naga Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 August, 2024
1
APHC010711592022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 42048/2022
Between:
M Naga Raju ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B SOMASEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2. PULIPATI RADHIKA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....to issue writ of prohibition declaring the action of Respondent No No.5
5 in entertaining
O.A.No.630
630 of 2017 as arbitrary
arbitrary, illegal and one without jurisdiction
n and consequently direct
the respondent No.5
5 not to entertain OO.A.No.630
630 of 2017 pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass..."
2. Heard Sri B. Somasekhar, learned cousnel appearing for the
petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Smt
P.Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Respondents No.3 and 4 filed O.A.No.630 of 2017 on the file of Respondent
No.5 stating that they are absolute owners of the property to an extent of Ac.3-
18 cents in RS.No.693 situated at Kalidindi Village and Mandal which was
born out of RSR relating to Kalidindi Village. According to Respondents No.3
and 4, the said land was meant for devadasis for performing dances in both
the respondents 3 and 4 devastanams and get appropriate income thereon till
they perform duties. After abolition of Devadasis Act, the rights over the said
property exclusively vested to the petitioners 2 and 3. The respondents 3 and
4 have no right or authority to exercise their jurisdiction over the subject
property under the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 since the subject property
is not an inam property burdened with dancing service for respondents 3 and
4 temples. It is further stated that the land in RS.No.623 and 693 of Kalidindi
Village and Mandal is not an endowed property and originally the
predecessors of title of the petitioners were holding possession and enjoyment
of the subject land as their private and personal properties. The predecessors
in title to the petitioners were issued Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into
Ryotwari) Act, 1956 vide orders No.12857 KKL dated 08.05.1959 by the
Special Deputy Tasildhar, Inams, Revenue Divisional Office, Gudivada. It is
further stated that Smt Puvvala Rattamma, W/o Purushotham who was
granted ryotwari patta on 05.05.1989 under Ex.A2 was the original pattadar,
executed a registered settlement deed in faovur of her nephew P.Bhogeswara
Rao under a registered document NO.1084 of 1963 dated 29.05.1963 for the
agricultural land owned, possessed and succeeded by her in St No.693 extent
being Ac 3.18 cents and Sy.No.623 extent being Ac 6.00 cents out of Ac
11.95 cents. It is further stated that whole claim of respondents No.3 and 4
basing upon the entries made in RSR with respect to R.S.No.696 of Kalidindi
Village and Mandal, but the respondents' no.3 and 4 have failed to mention
the basic document, on which they have relied upon to incorporate the entries
in the RSR. It is further stated that even as per the register under Section 43
of the Act 30 of 1987 maintained by the Endowments Department, there is no
mention of subject property i.e., Sy.No.193 extent being Ac 3.18 cents of
Kalidindi Village, as per the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner of
Endowments in R.Dis.No.A5/1336/2005 dated 09.05.2006, whereas the
property in Sy.No.693 of Kalidindi Village was included in R2 proceedings in
R.Dis.No.A5/7443/2016, dated 25.11.2016, wherein the subject property was
shown as temple property at Serial No.17 belonging to respondent No.3 and 4
herein. The respondents did not follow procedure contemplated in Section
43(10) of the Act 30, 1987 and no notice was issued to the petitioner before
effecting such amendment by the respondent No.2 and it is equally to the
judgment dated 27.7.2021 in WP No.12258 of 2021. It is further stated that
once the inclusion of entries under Section 43(10)of the Act 30, 1987 is
declared as bad in law, OA No.630 of 2017 filed by the respondents No.3 and
4 pending before respondent No.5 cannot be maintained and any continuation
of OA before the respondent No.5 is an abuse of process of law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. Learned counsel while
denying the allegations made in the petition, stated that 3rd and 4th
respondents are the absolute owners of the property in an extent of Ac.3-18
cents of land in R.S.No.693 situated at Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Eluru
District (erstwhile Krishna District) and the same was borne out from the
R.S.R. relating to the then Village of Kalidindi No.86. The said land was meant
for Devadasis for performing the dances in both the Devasthanams. After
abolition of Devadasis Act, the rights over the said property exclusively vested
with the 3rd and 4th respondents jointly. The same was borne out from the
R.S.R. and the Register under Section 43 of both the respondents as
amended by the proceedings in R.Dis.No.A5/7534/2016, dt.25.11.2016 in the
original register under Section 43 of A.P. Act 30/87 issued in R.Dis.
No.A5/1336/2005, dt.11.05.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that, according to the amended proceedings dt.25.11.2016 the 3rd and
4th respondents are entitled each 50% share from out of Ac.3.18 cents in
R.S.No.693. It is further stated that out of Ac.3.18 cents in R.S.No.693 the
petitioner has encroached an extent of Ac.1.05 cents and have been
continuing in the possession of the property without obtaining any prior
permission either from the Commissioner or Competent Authority. Hence, the
possession of the petitioner is an unauthorized possession and he is an
encroacher as defined under Section 83 of the A.P. Act 30/87. As there is no
any permission from the Competent Authority the petitioner to reside in the
said land the 3rd and 4th respondents constrained to file eviction petition under
Section 83 of the A.P. Act 30/87 for removal of the encroachment. It is further
stated that the contentions of the petitioner that the predecessor in title of the
petitioner were granted Ryotwari patta under A.P.Inams Act 1956 in the year
1959 is not correct and the contentions of the petitioner are put to strict proof
of the same. It is further stated that either the settlement deed, gift deed and
sale deeds are taken place behind back of the temple and without prior
permission from the competent authority or null and void by operation of Law
under the provisions of A.P. Act 30/87 i.e., section 80 of the said Act. Those
transactions are not binding on the temple. Learned counsel further submits
that if the petitioner has any dispute in respect of the title of the land, the
petitioner has to approach the A.P. Endowments Tribunal situated at
pedakakani under the provisions of the A.P. Act 30/87, till such time, the
petitioner does not have any right, title or interest over the property. Further,
as per the contention of the petitioner made in the affidavit whether the
petitioner is the owner or not? Whether he is in the possession or not? The
sale deeds are valid or not? The said rights can only be decided by the
Hon'ble A.P. Endowments Tribunal under the Provisions A.P. Act 30 of 1987
which is constituted under sec. 162 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987. Therefore, there
are no grounds much less valid grounds in the writ petition to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On a perusal of the material on record and on hearing the
submissions, it is observed that, admittedly, the respondents No.3 and 4 filed
O.A No.630 of 2017 on the file of respondent No.5 stating that they are
absolute owners of the property of extent being Ac 3.18 cents in R.s No.693
situated at Kalidindi village and Mandal. It is also observed that according to
respondents No.3 and 4 the said land was meant for devadasis for performing
dances in both the respondents No.3 and 4 devastanams and get appropriate
income thereon till they perform duties. It is the contention of the petitioner
that the respondents No.3 and 4 have no right or authority to exercise their
jurisdiction over the subject property under the provisions of the Act 30 of
1987 since the subject property is not an inam property burdened with dancing
service for respondents No.3 and 4 temples.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner counsel that the predecessors in
title of the petitioner were granted with ryotwari patta under A.P Inams Act
1956 in the year 1959, which has become final. If the respondents No.3 and 4
or so aggrieved by grant of patta, have to make an application to the Revenue
Divisional Officer concerned for resumption of the inam land under Section 77
of Act 30 of 1987. However, the respondents No.3 and 4 have filed an
application under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987 seeking eviction of the
petitioner from subject lands before respondent No.5-Tribunal which is a
procedural irregularity and amounts to abuse the process of law.
7. It is the contention of the respondents counsel that as per Section 4
& 7 of A.P. Inams (Abolition & conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 through Act
16 of 2013, no person other than the person to whom the Inam Land was
given to render service, or for performance of a religious or public charity or as
remuneration for performance of certain customary service, and who is in
enjoyment of such Inam land, shall be entitled to continue in enjoyment of
such land as long as the render such service for which that Inam was
originally given and as per Section 7, no person shall be entitled to Ryotwrai
patta in respect of any Inam land given to a service holder other employee of
an institution or endowment or tenant having permanent occupancy rights,
alienee or any other person in an any capacity in any other manner.
8. As seen from the material, it is observed that, respondent No.5 has
categorically admitted in his examination that the temple has not initiated any
proceedings before the Revenue Authorities for resumption of the subject
properties in connection with R.S No.693 in an extent of Ac 3.18 cents. He
also admitted that the temple is not holding any specific document to claim
against the subject property except entries in R.S.R Section 38 and 43
approved property Registers with Section 43(10) endorsements.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that, Section 43 (10) of the Act, reads
as under:
43 (10):- The trustee or other person in charge of the management of an institution or
endowment or his authorized agent shall report to the Assistant Commissioner every year the
alterations, omissions or additions in the particulars, relating to the institution or endowment
and shall also send to him once in three years the certificate of registration granted to him
under subsection (5) or sub-section (9) together with a statement of such alterations,
omissions or additions, as may be necessary to the said certificate and the Assistant
Commissioner shall thereupon make such enquiry as he deems fit and amend the certificate
wherever necessary and return it to such trustee or other person and shall also make
necessary amendments in the regard in the register maintained by him under sub-section (6).
A copy of such amendments shall be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner having
jurisdiction and another copy to the Commissioner."
10. A plain reading of the above, the provision stipulates that the
Assistant Commissioner has to conduct an enquiry before accepting the
amendments or inclusions sought by the trustees to the list of properties or
institution registered under Section 43 of the Act. The learned counsel on
either side, have their own interpretation as to the scope of the said enquiry
and the necessity of issuing notice to the affected parties.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion, once the inclusion of entries under Section 43(10) of Act 30, 1987 is
declared as illegal and that O.A No.630 of 2017 filed by the respondents No.3
and 4 pending before respondent No.5 cannot be maintained. Therefore, this
Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition by declaring the action of
respondent No.5 in entertaining O.A No.630 of 2017 as illegal.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 09-08-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO:42048 of 2022
Date : 09-08-2024
Gvl
