THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29305 of 2011 Date: 02.11.2011 Between: Mittapalli Constructions, Guntur District. … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P., Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29305 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Mutt and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner-firm seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider its case for executing a registered sale deed in its favour in respect of certain lands belonging to the 3rd respondent-Mutt. 3. The peculiar facts as pleaded and presented at the hearing are that, M/s. Balaji Para Boiled Rice Mill, Narasaraopet, Guntur District (not a party to this writ petition) borrowed loan from the State Bank of India, Narasaraopet Main Branch. The said firm is said to have purchased the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.98 cents in Sy.No.57/20 Lingamguntla Agraharam, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, from the cultivating tenants under a registered sale deed dated 12.2.1980, and furnished it as security towards the said loan. On the default committed by the said firm, the said property was brought to sale under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In the auction, the petitioner-firm became the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.85,60,000/- and accordingly a sale certificate dated 05.12.2006 was issued in favour of the petitioner-firm, thereby creating ownership and possessary rights in its favour. The 3rd respondent- Mutt issued a notice to the petitioner-firm on 14.10.2008 claiming the property as its endowment. Having realized that the said property is endowed to the 3rd respondent-Mutt, the petitioner-firm, in order to avoid further litigation, submitted a representation dated 9.11.2010 to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (which was received in the O/o. the Commissioner of Endowments on 19.11.2010) with a copy to the 1st respondent-Government requesting to sell the subject property by executing a sale deed. Since respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action in the matter, the petitioner-firm has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Various contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner-firm contending that the petitioner-firm is a bonafide purchaser of the subject property for valuable consideration. It is contended that the petitioner-firm purchased the said property believing it to be private property, as the same was earlier owned by another firm and auctioned by an instrumentality of the State viz., State Bank of India and, therefore, the interest of the petitioner-firm is liable to be protected. Alternatively, it is contended that the petitioner-firm has no objection to pay separate sale consideration to the 3rd respondent-Mutt and purchase the subject property. It is, therefore, contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to consider the said request to sell the subject property in favour of the petitioner-firm in the interest of justice. 5. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Mutt, on the other hand, contends that since the subject property belongs to the 3rd respondent-Mutt, sale of the said property by third parties is not only void, but such sale transaction is not binding on the 3rd respondent-Mutt. He, however, submits that it is for the State Government or the Commissioner of Endowments, as the case may be, to permit alienation of the subject property in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions in the light of the provisions of Section 80 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity “the Act”). 7. Section 80 of the Act prescribes that alienation of any endowment property without prior sanction of the Commissioner is null and void. The Commissioner, however, is competent to accord sanction for alienation, if he considers that such a transaction is prudent and necessary or beneficial to the endowment and, that the immovable property is uneconomical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain and, that the consideration therefor is adequate and proper, and the sale shall be effected by tender cum public auction in the prescribed manner, subject to the confirmation by the Commissioner. 8. The said requirement of alienation through tender cum public auction is dispensed with, provided the State Government permits the sale otherwise than by public auction. The State Government, in exercise of the said power, is required to record reasons and the sale should be in the interest of the institution. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is for the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner-firm for alienation of the subject property in its favour. 9. As noticed above, the petitioner-firm has already submitted a representation dated 9.11.2010 to the 2nd respondent with a copy to the 1st respondent. Since a request has already been made in that regard, it is for those authorities to take a decision as per the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 10. In the circumstances, it is suffice to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 9.11.2010 of the petitioner-firm in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Even though a copy of the said representation is said to have marked to the 1st respondent, the petitioner-firm has not filed any material to show that the 1st respondent has received the same. Therefore, the petitioner-firm is at liberty to make a fresh application for alienation of the subject property to respondent Nos.1 and 2, within a period of four weeks from today. On such representation being made, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same and take a decision strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. This order, however, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of the Court on any aspect. 11. Subject to the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 02.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29305 of 2011 02.11.2011 (Msr)