Telangana High Court

Anju Somani, R.R.Dist vs Prl Secy, Endowments Dept, Hyd And 4 ... on 11 February, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION Nos.4926, 4927, 4933, 7345, 8185, 8614 and
                    15082 of 2016
 COMMON ORDER:

In view of the commonality of issue, these writ petitions

are heard and taken up for disposal by this Common Order. For

reference, the facts in W.P.No.15082 of 2016 are taken.

2. Petitioners claim title to the lands in Sy.Nos.72 to 77 of

Tejaswi Colony, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District by acquisition from the legal heirs of original

cultivators of the lands. It is their case that they obtained loans

from nationalized banks for purchase of the subject properties,

and the Bank after due verification and legal opinion released

loans, and thereafter the petitioners purchased the properties

under registered sale deeds. While so, the 3rd respondent-

Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department (1st applicant)

filed Original Applications before the Endowments Tribunal

essentially on the plea that the subject lands belong to Sri

Seetharama Swamy Temple (2nd applicant before the Tribunal)

and that the petitioners herein are encroachers. In the said

Applications the 1st applicant had also filed Interlocutory

Applications seeking a direction to the petitioners to deposit

amounts to the 2nd applicant-Temple for use of subject

properties. The Tribunal after considering the counter affidavits

filed by the petitioners herein passed interim orders dated

24.09.2013 directing the petitioners to pay amounts within two

months from the date of the order, and in case of default the

right of defense of petitioners was struck down. As the petitioners

did not comply the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, their

defense was struck down and the Tribunal passed the impugned

order dated 08.07.2015, which is an exparte order, allowing the

applications directing the petitioners herein to remove the

encroachments and deliver the possession of the subject

properties to the 2nd applicant-Temple and if the petitioners

failed to handover the possession of the subject lands, the 1st

applicant (Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department)

was permitted to take the aid of Police, under Section 84 of the

AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments

Act, 1987, to evict the petitioners from the subject lands.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Avadesh Narayan Sanghi

appearing for the petitioners, while making submissions on the

lines of the writ affidavit, would essentially contend that the

petitioners, challenging the interim orders dated 24.09.2013

passed by the Tribunal, approached this Court by filing

W.P.No.23009 of 2015 and batch. This Court, after hearing the

parties, passed order dated 28.08.2015. Learned Senior Counsel

would submit that the respondents have not apprised the

Tribunal about the pending proceedings in W.P.No.23009 of 2015

before this Court, and apparently the Tribunal was unaware of

the final orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23009 of 2015

and batch, dated 28.08.2015, thereby the Tribunal passed the

impugned orders, in an ex parte manner by forfeiting the

valuable right of defense of the petitioners. Learned Senior

Counsel contends that predecessors of petitioners were issued

Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Inams Abolition Act, and

the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land by availing

bank loans after verification of legal title by the Banks, and after

almost three decades the impugned proceedings were initiated

claiming that the lands belong to the Temple. It is contended that

Inams Abolition Act takes precedence over the Endowments Act,

and the rights established under Inams Abolition Act cannot be

upset by the Endowments Act. Learned Senior Counsel would

ultimately contend that these facts have not been considered by

the Tribunal and, in any event, this Court by order dated

28.08.2015 in W.P.No.23009 of 2015 and batch directed the

Tribunal to decide the issues by considering the contentions of

both the parties and therefore the matters may be remitted to the

Tribunal.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments on the

contrary submits that the subject lands belong to the Temple and

the Assistant Commissioner/3rd respondent herein filed

Applications before the Tribunal, and also filed Interlocutory

Applications seeking direction to the petitioners to deposit rents

for occupation of the subject lands. It is contended that the

petitioners contested those Interlocutory Applications by filing

counter affidavits, and the Tribunal after considering the same,

passed interim orders directing to deposit the amounts, and it

was made clear that if the petitioners failed to comply with the

interim orders, their defense would be struck down and,

therefore it is the lack of compliance of the petitioners in

complying with the orders, the impugned orders were passed

after examining the claim and supporting documents filed by the

Temple. Learned Government Pleader however does not dispute

the pendency of W.P.No.23009 of 2015 and batch as on the date

of passing the impugned order.

5. This Court, while disposing of W.P.No.23009 of 2015

and batch, by order dated 28.08.2015, observed at paragraph

No.29 as follows:

"29. However, having regard to the fact that original order was passed on 24.09.2013 and petitioners kept quiet till further orders are passed on 18.06.2015 and as the orders dated 24.09.2013 prescribed that in the event of non- compliance of the orders of depositing of damages, they would forfeit the right to defend, while remitting the matter for consideration and disposal of the OAs on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to petitioners herein, it is ordered that petitioners shall deposit 25% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as damages to respective petitioners and payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- in each of the OAs to the respondents herein, who are the applicants in the OAs pending before the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Proof of deposit of amounts and payment of costs as directed above shall be filed before the Tribunal within one week of such deposit/payment. The respondents are directed to keep the amount deposited by petitioners in a separate fixed

deposit account and be retained in the fixed deposit till the OAs are disposed of by the Tribunal. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not deposit the amount and/or do not pay costs as directed above and no proof of such deposit/payment is filed, the Tribunal is entitled to dispose of the OAs on merits without hearing them. It is also made clear that all issues are left open to be considered by the Tribunal. Tribunal shall decide the issues uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment. The Tribunal shall consider the contentions of both parties uninfluenced by the findings recorded in orders passed in IAs on 29.04.2013 and 18.06.2015. Tribunal shall dispose of the OAs as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of deposit of amounts as directed above or after expiry of time granted to petitioners to deposit the amounts as the case may be."

6. Having considered the respective submissions and

perusing the record, it may be noted that the impugned order

was passed by forfeiting the right of defense for non-compliance

of interim orders by the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners

approached this Court in W.P.No.23009 of 2015 and batch, and

this Court by order dated 28.08.2015 directed the Tribunal to

decide the issue after considering the contentions of both the

parties. Further, in these writ petitions, there are interim orders

in favour of the petitioners, and the petitioners are in possession

of the subject lands.

7. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are

disposed of by remitting the matters to the Endowments Tribunal