Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tanneeru Veera Venkata Ramesh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 November, 2024
APHC010394382009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NOS:.11774, 23307 of 2009, 20220 of 2016 and
18038 of 2019.
WRIT PETITION NO: 11774/2009
Between:
Tanneeru Veera Venkata Ramesh and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI
2. R GOPI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
3. PULIPATI RADHIKA
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
-
These Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue and therefore are being
disposed of by a common order.
2. Heard Mr. R.Gopi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners, who
appeared virtually; Ms.Pulipati Radhika, learned Standing Counsel and
learned Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents.
3. The main grievance of the petitioners herein is that they are the
absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural lands situated in
Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District in respect of
respective survey numbers and extents. The 2nd respondent/ temple used to
proclaim in the village that the subject lands belong to Devasthanam, though
their predecessors have also been in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the same for times immemorial being absolute owners. While the matter stood
thus, the respondents 1 and 2 unilaterally and without any authority issued
impugned notice 02.06.2009 proposing to conduct the auction on 18.06.2009
for lease hold rights of subject agricultural lands belonging to the petitioners
as illegal and arbitrary. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in
this writ petition and requested to allow the writ petitions.
4. During hearing learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would
contend that the petitioners have filed civil suits vide O.S.No.191 of 2009 and
O.S.No.192 of 2009 on the file of Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Kovvur, which was returned on 10.01.2024, which reads as follows:-
"On perusal of evidence let in by the plaintiff and 1st defendant the
clear admission of PW.1 at about 100 years ago the Schedule property
belongs to the 1st defendant temple. Now the said temple is come under the
Endowment as per the above citations and Amended act of 33 of 2007
A.P.Endowment Act 30 Amended Act with effect from 03.01.2008 where as
the present sui filed dated 06.07.2009 which is after amendment of the A.P.
Endowment Act as such the Section 162(1) clearly indicates the ousting/ bar
of the Jurisdiction of Civil Court for any dispute about the Endowment
property or involvement of the Endowment. Admittedly, the plaintiff shown the
1st defendant who is temple come under the Endowment. The 1st defendant
also claiming the property belongs to them, so both are claiming the right of
the Schedule property as such the Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to decide
this case. The plaintiff is directed to present the plaint before proper Court on
or before 8th February. Accordingly, the plaint has been returned.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued
that there is clear finding given by the court below to the petitioners to
approach learned tribunal for redressal of their grievance as per Act 33 of
2007. Therefore, if the petitioners have any grievance, they shall approach the
tribunal for redressal of their grievance. Hence, requested to pass appropriate
orders in this writ petitions also.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners
are in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and requested
to protect the interest of the petitioners till filing of the claim before the learned
tribunal.
7. It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be
dispossessed forcibly as held in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa
Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr1, Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and
Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration3, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
AIR 2004 SC 4609
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
"...to forcibly dispossess citizens of their private property, without
following the due process of law, would be to violate a human
right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300A of the
Constitution."
8. Recording submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
respondents and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, this
Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petitions, with the consent of both the
counsel, while directing the petitioners to approach learned Tribunal for
redressal of their grievance. However, this order will not preclude the
respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are dispose of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 12.11.2024.
KK
