Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nutakki Purnachandra Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 30 August, 2024

                                               1

APHC010873972016
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                                         [3310]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                         PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 27934 OF 2016

Between:

Nutakki Purnachandra Rao,                                                      ...PETITIONER

                                             AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                                      ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. B V S CHALAPATI RAO

  2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

  3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "to to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner's land in R.S.No.138 admeasuring Ac. 8.60 cents situated at Gunadala Village, Vijayawada Town, Krishna District and issuing G.O.Rt.No.385, Revenue (Endts.II) Depar Department, tment, dated 05.05.2015 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice without jurisdiction and total non application of mind and consequently declar declaree that the petitioner is entitled to be

continued in possession of the above said property and pass such other and further orders".

2. The precise case of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 and 4

requested the petitioner to purchase the land an extent of Ac. 8.60 cents in

R.S.No.138 of Gunadala, Vijayawada, for the purpose of maintaining the

affairs of the Mutt and expansion of its activities and they promised that they

would get the clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities in respect of

the subject land. Accordingly, the petitioner paid major portion of sale

consideration and an agreement dated 09.07.1974 was executed and also

delivered possession to the petitioner agreeing to pay remaining balance after

getting clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and at the time of

registration of sale deed. Subsequently the Mutt authorities executed a sale

deed in respect of 5000 sq.yds and registered the same in favour of the

petitioner vide document No. 2099 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 and another sale

deed was executed in favour of nominee of the petitioner in respect of 5000

Sq.yds vide document No.2100 of 2014, dated 17.04.2014. While the matter

stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 20.02.2008 to

the petitioner why G.O.Rt.No.1494, dated 17.10.1985 should not be cancelled.

The issue was prejudged by the respondents and taken a decision to cancel

the said G.O even before issuing the said show-cause notice dated

20.02.2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted explanation. Without

considering the explanation the respondents issued impugned G.O cancelling

the earlier G.O, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1855 of 2011

questioning the action of the respondents therein in not receiving the

documents pertaining to the subject land involved in the Agreement of Sale

dated 09.07.1974. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Registering

Authority registered the two sale deeds and development agreement and GPA

in to two parts of the subject land. Again the Registering Authority objected for

further registration of the subject land. Hence again the petitioner has filed

W.P.No.1693 of 2015 and this Court held that the registering authorities shall

not have any adjudicatory rights in respect of the property covered by the

document presented for registration except informing the reasons for refusing

registration or cancellation of registration. The Fit Person said to have been

appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments filed a suit in O.S.No.94 of

2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

against the petitioner and others for grant of permanent injunction restraining

him from making any construction in the subject land, wherein the petitioner

has filed an application to reject the said plaint, which is pending. In the mean

time, the respondent/ Endowments are interfering with the possession of the

subject land without following due process of law. The respondent/

Endowments have no authority to interfere with the possession of property of

the petitioner and issued the impugned G.O, dated 05.05.2015 is highly illegal

and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed, questioning the

inaction of the respondents.

4. Heard Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner;

learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents.1

and 2; Mr.B.V.S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4

and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Stamps and Registration for the

5th respondent.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contents urged in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner is

a bonafide purchaser in value and he has been possession and enjoyment of

the same. The petitioner has also submitted explanation to the show-cause

notice to the 2nd respondent, but without considering the same issued

impugned G.O is highly illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that the

entire ownership rights of the said property were vested with 3rd respondent,

which is located in Karnataka State. The law of the State of Karnataka is

applicable to the Mutts located in Karnataka State, even though the property is

located in the State of Andhra Pradesh and other places. Therefore, the

provisions of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act in short "the Act" are not applicable to the said lands and the Government

has no authority to declare the registered sale transaction as null and void.

Under the guise of appointment of a fit person, the respondent authorities are

trying to interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject

land. The petitioner is inducted into possession and has been enjoying the

subject land, by paying entire sale consideration and hence, the respondents

have no authority to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the

subject land. Hence, requested this Court to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material

averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the alleged

agreement of sale dated 09.07.1974 entered by petitioner with 4th respondent/

Mutt authorities is without obtain prior sanction from competent authority i.e

2nd respondent. As per Section 74 of the repealed Act 17/1966 prior sanction

of the Commissioner of Endowments is mandatory in respect of any sale of

immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any

charitable or religious institution or endowment. If any sale of immovable

property of charitable institution made without prior sanction from the

Commissioner, it shall be null and void. It is further contended that the entire

ownership rights of the subject property was vested with 3rd respondent, which

is situated at Karnataka State and that the law of State of Andhra Pradesh and

other placed belong to Mutt and that the provisions of the Act are not

applicable to the subject land are not correct. It is well settled law that the land

of the subject land where at immovable property situated is applicable. The 4th

respondent is in this State and at the same time the dispute involved in this

case is located at Gunadala, Vijayawada, hence the State of Andhra Pradesh

is applicable to the property in question, which belongs to 4th respondent. If

really the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the subject property, the

petitioner cannot and shall not rely on G.O.Rt.No.1494, dated 17.10.1985

issued by the 1st respondent and consequently the subsequent two registered

sale deeds dated 17.04.2014 for 5000 Sq.yds each became invalid. After

appointment of Fit Person to the 4th respondent by the Commissioner of

Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, he filed a suit in O.S.No.94 of 2015 on the file

of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the

petitioner and others for grant of permanent injunction and same is still

pending. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be

dismissed.

7. The respondents 3 and 4 filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended

that the sale deed could not be registered by the 4th respondent in favour of

the petitioner due to non clearance of permission given by the revenue and

municipal authorities of Vijayawada till 1985. However, the subject land is in

possession of the petitioner since 1974 and the respondents 3 and 4 have

received the balance of sale consideration with interest from the petitioner on

17.04.2014 by way of Demand Draft. Hence, the duty cast upon the

respondents 3 and 4 to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner and his

nominees as and when he come forward to get the registration of the sale

deed. The duty is only to execute the sale deed and the State Government

has no role to play by taking the shelter of endowment act against Mutt

properties of respondents 3 and 4 situated all over India and the sole

jurisdiction will come under Karnataka State only. Therefore, requested to

pass appropriate orders.

8. The 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that

pursuant to the Judgment of this Court, the Commissioner of Endowments

vide letter dated 05.07.2016 has furnished the list of properties owned by

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments for the purpose

of prohibition under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, wherein the subject

land is included, which shows that it belongs to the respondents 3 and 4. The

land in question is prohibited for registration under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, 1908. As per Judgment in W.A.No.343 of 2015 and batch,

dated 23.12.2015, if a relevant property/ land finds place in the list of

properties covered by clause (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, the

aggrieved party may approach concerned authority to delete his lands from

the list. In the instant case, the State Government is claiming the subject

property, included the same in the prohibited properties and furnished to the

registering authority for enforcing the prohibition contained in clauses (a) to €

of Section 22-A(1). Hence, without adjudicating the claims of the State or the

institution concerned, it would not be just to allow registration of documents

affecting such properties. In view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, the

petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority for deletion of the subject

property from the list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, but the

5th respondent has no authority to register the document in respect of the

subject land, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Perused the record.

10. In the instant case, the respondents 3 and 4 have entered into an

agreement with the petitioner to sell the subject property and received

sufficient sale consideration. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner has paid entire sale consideration and he has

been inducted into possession since long time and the Government has no

authority to question the same. The counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd

respondent is supporting the case of the petitioner and specifically said that

Sri Sringeri Sharadha Peetham, Sringeri, Karnkataka is to execute the sale

deed in favour of the petitioner and his nominees as and when come forward

to get the registration of sale deed and their duty is only to execute the sale

deed and the State of Andhra Pradesh has no role to play by taking shelter of

Endowments Act against the Mutt properties. It is further contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Mutt is situated at

Karnataka, which having vast properties across India, the law will apply only

as per Karnaka State, but not State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the 2nd

respondent has no role or has no authority to interfere with the possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel

for the petitioner placed on record the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

"State of Bihar and Others v. SM. Charusila Dasi1, wherein it was held as

follows:-

"13. Now, we proceed to a consideration of the second point. Section 3 of the Act says-

"This Act shall apply to all religious trusts, whether created before or after the commencement of this Act, any part of the property of which is stated in the State of Bihar."

The argument before us on behalf of the respondent is this. Under Article 245 of the Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the

"1959 Supp (2) SCR 601: AIR 1959 SC 1002

territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. clause (2) of the said Article further states that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. Article 246 gives the distribution of legislative power; Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in what has been called the Union List; Parliament as also the legislature of a State have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List; the legislature of a State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List. Item 28 of the Concurrent List is- "Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions". Learned counsel for the respondent contends that by reason of the provisions in Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with Item 28 of the Concurrent List, the Bihar legislature which passed the Act had no power to make a law which has operation outside the State of Bihar; he further contends that under Section 3 the Act is made applicable to all religious trusts, whether created before or after the commencement of the Act, any part of the property of which is situated in the State of Bihar; therefore, the Act will apply to a religious institution which is outside Bihar even though a small part of its property may lie in that State. It is contended that such a provision is ultra vires the power of the Bihar Legislature, and Parliament alone can make a law which will apply to religious institutions having properties in different States. Alternatively, it is contended that even if the Act applies to a religious institution in Bihar a small part of the property of which is in Bihar, the provisions of the Act can have no application to such property of the institution as is outside Bihar, such as the Calcutta properties in the present case."

11. In "Anant Prasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and Others" 2 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed and

reiterated the case of SM. Charusila Dasi (cited supra) and wherein it was

held as follows:-

"10. .......

1963 Supp (1) SCR 844: AIR 1963 SC 853

"Where the trust is situate in Bihar the State has legislative power over it and also over its trustees or their servants and agents who must be in Bihar to administer the trust, and as the object of the Act is to provide for the better administration of Hindu Religious Trusts in the State of Bihar and for the protection of properties appertaining thereto, in respect of the property belonging to the trust outside the State the aim is sought to be achieved by exercising control over the trustees in personam, and there is really no question of the Act having extra-territorial operation".

It was further held that----."

"the circumstance that the temples where the deities were installed are situate in Bihar and that the hospital and charitable dispensary are to be established in Bihar for the benefit of the Hindu public in Bihar, gives enough territorial connection to enable the legislature of Bihar to make a law with respect to such trust".

This decision in our opinion makes it abundantly clear that where the trust is situate in a particular State, the law of that State will apply to the trust, even though any part of the trust property, whether large or small, is situate outside the State where the trust is situate".

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court

in "Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha v. The Assistant

Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor and others" in Writ Petition Nos.

34438 of 2012 and batch, dated 04.01.2022, wherein the learned Single

Judge of this Court has discussed catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex

Court and also decisions cited supra has opined as follows:-

"24. The ratio of the above judgments can be summarized to hold that any religious or charitable institution would be governed and regulated by the Endowment Law applicable to the State in which the head quarters of the said institution is situated. In the event of such an institution holding properties, even extensive properties, in any other State, the law applicable to the institution would remain the Endowment law applicable in the State in which it is situated."

13. Therefore, following the decision of this Court and catena of

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, this issue is squarely covered

by an order of this Court in W.P.No.31438 of 2012 and batch, dated

04.01.2022. Under the aforementioned circumstances, it must be held that

since the Mutt is situated in the State of Karnataka, the provisions of 'the Act'

would not apply to the respondent/ Endowment. Admittedly, the petitioner has

been inducted into possession of the subject land, the respondent/

Endowment has no authority to interfere with the petitioner's possession and

enjoyment of the subject property and that the action of the respondents is

hereby restrained. The subject matter purely related in between the petitioner

and Mutt, hence the respondents have got nothing to do with the same.

14. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, this Writ Petition is