IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.981 of 1997 Between: Tarigopula Obulu (died) and 9 others ..... APPELLANTS AND Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Rep.by Temple Inspector, Sri Lakshmi Chennakesavaswamy Devasthanam, Markapur and 19 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.981 of 1997 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellants question the order of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur dated 01.04.1996 in LAOP.25/1997 wherein it was held that 10th Respondent therein and 6th respondent herein namely Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamyvaru Devasthanam, Markapur, Prakasam District alone is entitled to receive the entire compensation deposited in respect of the land in Sy.No.899 of an extent of 2.44 cents situated at Markapur village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. The facts relating to the case in question are that the land of an extent of Ac.2.44 cents in Sy.No.899 of Markapur village and Mandal was acquired for the purpose of establishing a market yard at Markapur pursuant to notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 18.05.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur conducted an enquiry for passing an award and accordingly passed the award No.7/86 dated 27.04.1986 holding that as per the records, Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamyvaru Devasthanam, Markapur was the Pattadar. The enjoyers by name Tarigoppula Jalapathi and Tarigoppula Obulu, who are respondents Nos.11 and 13 in LAOP.25/1997 have attended the enquiry and stated that they were enjoying the said land by raising crops therein and the temple has no right over the said land. They raised objection for acquisition of the land and awarding compensation. Some other lands were also acquired for the purpose of establishing the market yard. There was a title dispute in respect of lands acquired in the present case and in respect of some other lands acquired for the same purpose and hence a common reference was made in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.44 cents in Sy.No.899 as well as the lands in Sy.No.897/1A of an extent of 8.42 cents. The lands covered by Sy.No.897/1A relate to Sri Prasananjaneyaswamyvaru Devasthanam where other claimants have claimed title to the said property. 3. Counters were filed by the respective claimants of various extents claimed by them in Sy.No.897/1A. Similarly, in so far as Tarigoppula Obulu, who raised an objection along with Tarigoppula Jalapathi have filed counter stating that the land of an extent of Ac.2.44 cents in Sy.No.899 was a Bhajanthri service inam land of Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamyvaru Temple. The land in question was also shown in Form-II Rule-3 of the Inams Abolition Act 1956 declaring it as Inam land in a ryotwari village and not held by an institution under Sec.3 of the Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956, as per the decision of the Tahsildar, Markapur in RCA.4/6019/76 dated 19.12.1984 which was marked as Ex.B8. The said order of the Tahsildar under Ex.B8 has become final and the temple has no claim over the said land and therefore, it could not claim the compensation for the said land. It is stated that the land was not held by the temple. Under Sec.3 of the Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 which was notified in Form-II and the Rules framed thereunder the land has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the claimants/Respondents Nos.11 and 13 in the OP namely Tarigoppula Jalapathi and Tarigoppula Obulu. It is stated that the said land was being enjoyed by their ancestors and thereafter they have succeeded to the same to the knowledge of the temple authorities and therefore, the temple is neither pattadar nor absolute owner. Accordingly, it was stated that Respondents Nos.11 and 13 in the OP are only entitled to receive the compensation. 4. Claimant/Respondent No.13-Tarigoppula Obulu was examined as RW 3. He stated that he is a barber by caste and he would do Pipers (Bhajantri). The deceased respondent No.11 is his cousin and after his death, his legal heirs Respondents Nos.21 to 23 were brought on record. The land of an extent of Ac.2.44 cents in Sy.No.899 situated in Markapur belongs to them. It is their ancestral land and it is service inam land. He further stated that he has been paying land revenue for the said land under Ex.B9 cist receipt issued in his name dated 20.04.1992. There was an enquiry before the Tahsildar, Markapur and the Tahsildar gave a finding that it is the service inam land and not held by the institution and the said order was marked as Ex.B8. Ex.B10 is the relevant entry at pages-138 and 139 in Ex.B1 Register, and at Sl.No.4 the land in Sy.No.899 was shown as musical service inam land. Therefore, Respondents Nos.11 and 13 and their legal heirs who are appellants herein alone are entitled to receive the compensation deposited into the Court. There are no disputes among the claimants Nos.11 and 13 and their legal representatives. 5. In the cross examination made on behalf of Respondent No.10 Temple, he stated that even today they and their families are performing daily services in the temple. In the temple book also their names were entered as they were performing Sevas at the time of Utsavam and the temple was paying 10 annas for Utsavam. The lands were allotted in their favour for the services rendered by them to the temple. The Temple Committee preferred appeal against Ex.B8 order to the Revenue Divisional Officer but the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the said appeal confirming the orders of the Tahsildar. Therefore, it is stated that they are entitled for compensation. 6. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is clear oral and documentary evidence i.e. Exs.B1, B8, B9 and B10 establishing that the land acquired is the service inam land and the ancestors of the claimants, claimants and their legal heirs are continuously rendering service to the temple, and as long as they render service, they are entitled to enjoy the said land as it being the service inam land. But the Court below instead of holding that the said land is a service inam land as per the order of the Tahsildar under Ex.B8 and that the claimants are entitled to compensation, erroneously rejected the claim of the claimants holding that the appellants are not entitled to receive the compensation. As per Ex.B10 entries in Ex.B1 resettlement and resurvey register, the said land is service inam land (Bajanthri) and the appellants are admittedly doing services and therefore they are entitled to receive the compensation. 7. The Court below only considered the point as to who is entitled to receive the compensation, and if so, to what extent. 8. The Court below held that the temple alone is entitled to receive the compensation. The land was given to the temple for the purpose of rendering service and therefore, the temple alone is pattadar and owner and merely because the claimants are rendering services, it cannot be said that the said land is the service inam land. 9. It is stated that the land was service inam land burdened with the service of Baling musical service and the lands are specifically granted to render services to the temple and the profits should be enjoyed by the landholders as long as they render services to the temple, and they are not personal holders of the said land. It is further stated that the learned Judge has confused in respect of the claims made by the claimants relating to Sy.No.897/1A and 899 and held that the said land is not personal inam and the said lands are not alienable and therefore, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that similar issue was considered in LAOP Nos.50/1973 and 29/1974 in the case of Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava swamyvaru Temple Vs.Land Acquisition Officer where the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur by a common order dated 07.03.1977 held that compensation amount should be paid to Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamy varu Temple and the musicians are only entitled to the interest on the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamy Varu Temple preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.752 & 753 of 1977 before this Court and this Court also by common order dated 21.01.1987 dismissed both the appeals while confirming the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole passed in LAOP Nos.50/1973 and 29/1974 holding that the service holders are entitled to compensation. 11. It is stated that in the above cases, the Subordinate Judge, Ongole held that as the service inamdars are not entitled to alienate the said land, they are disqualified from receiving compensation under Sec.31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the compensation amount was directed to be deposited in any nationalized bank in FDR and the interest accrued thereon shall alone be paid to the musicians periodically. The appellants herein sought for the similar relief stating that they are entitled to enjoy the income from the service inam lands as long as they render services to the temple. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent- Temple submits that as per Sec.82 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 all leases of agricultural lands belonging to the endowments stand cancelled and the said Sec.82 was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi[1] and therefore, the similar analogy would be applicable in respect of the inam lands also, though the lands in question are the service inam lands under Sec.75. 13. In view of Sec.76 any ryotwari patta in respect of the inam land is given to a service holder or employee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment for the purpose of rendering service to the institution or endowment then, notwithstanding to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed or grant or of transfer of other document relating to such land shall be deemed never to have been granted and therefore all the service imams are deemed to have not been granted and they cannot have any force of law. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sec.76 in so far as it relates to the prohibition that any service inam land granted is deemed to have been never granted and the Explanation-II of Sec.2(22) are held to be invalid and unconstitutional by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganatha Desika Iyengar vs. Govt. of A.P. and another[2] and therefore, it cannot be said that the claimants are not entitled for the benefits of the inam lands. In fact, in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted the view held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Boppudi Punniah vs. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Varu[3] that service imams are also to be held as inams governed by the Inams Abolition Act and the ryotwari patta therefore be held to have been issued to the service holders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganatha Desika Iyengar (2 supra) held at paragraph-16 as follows: “It would thus be clear and we hold that without amending the law under Inam Abolition Act and without properly removing the foundation of the judgments rendered by the High Court, the legislature sought to destroy the effect of the law in Inam Abolition Act on erroneous belief or assumption that it did not bind the religion or charitable institutions or endowment or that the holder of land did not acquire title or no patta was granted to him and the land was still with the institution and treated the occupant as encroacher. The legislation founded on such an erroneous assumption does not have the effect of depriving the holder of theland or their vested rights acquired under the Inams Abolition Act. The legislature has plainly misfired. Accordingly, we hold that Section 76 and Explanation II to Section 2(22) of the Act to that extent are invalid and unconstitutional.” 15. The learned standing counsel for respondents Endowments Department has not brought to our notice any judgment contrary to the above referred judgments. 16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to receive the usufruct or interest accrued from out of the compensation amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land. Therefore, we are unable to take a different opinion as against the opinion of the learned single Judge of this Court held in A.S.Nos.752 and 753/1977 dated 21.01.1987. Even the service imams can be resumed if the holders of the inam lands have failed to perform or make necessary arrangements for performing sevas in accordance with the custom or usage of the institutions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as long as service inamdars are continued to perform the services, they are entitled to receive the interest accrued on the compensation amount deposited into the court. 17. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order in L.A.O.P.25/1987 in so far as it relates to the lands in question of an extent of Ac.2.44 cents in Sy.No.899, and direct the compensation amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer to be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the 6th respondent-temple in any nationalized bank and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid periodically to the appellants/petitioners as long as they render services to the temple. 18. The Appeal Suit is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 04.08.2010 Dsr . [1] (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 708 [2] AIR 1996 Supreme Court 966 [3] 1963) 2 Andh WR 214