*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA +W.P.Nos.14982 & 16503 of 2005 % 4-12-2007 # P.Raghunath Reddy And others …. Petitioners And $ The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar District And others …. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioners : Sri M.Sudheer Kumar ^ Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Endowments ?CASES REFERRED : 1. (2007) 7 SCC 482 2. 2007(1) ALD 262 3. 2004(2) ALD 148 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos.14982 & 16503 of 2005 Date : 4-12-2007 Between : P.Raghunath Reddy And others …. Petitioners And The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar District And others …. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos.14982 & 16503 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a Common Order in view of the commonality of the questions of fact and questions of Law involved in both these matters. The Counsel no doubt brought it to the notice of this Court that yet another connected Writ Petition, W.P.No.14180/2004, questioning the auction is said to be pending, but on verification it is found that the said Writ Petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. In the light of the same, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The petitioners P.Raghunatha Reddy and others filed W.P.No.14982/2005, praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.B/441/2004 dated 6-7-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, without power or authority, opposed to the principles of natural justice offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the lands in Sy.No.697, 699 and 700 of Veepanagandla village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. Likewise, the writ petitioners P.Sarva Reddy and another filed W.P.No.16503/2005 praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.B/441/2004 dated 6-7-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, without power or authority, opposed to the principles of natural justice and offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the lands in Sy.Nos.697, 699 and 700 of Veepanagandla, Mahaboobnagar District and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is needless to say that in both these Writ Petitions, the same proceedings dated 6-7-2005 had been impugned, which reads as hereunder:- Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahabubnagar Rc.No.B/441/2004, Dated 6-7-2005: Sub:- Endowments Department – Mahaboobnagar District – Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, - Weepangandla (V) & (M), Sale of lands to land less poor – Recognising the Landless poor – Certain of the Individual – Rejected – Orders – Issued – Regarding. Ref:- 1. Notice U/s 82 from the Manager of the temple dated 2-5-2003 2. Manager of the temple Lr. 3. Inspector, Endowments Department, Nagarkurnool Lr.No.2004, dated 18-5-2004. 4. Application dated 9-7-2003 from Sri Vijaya Kumar Reddy, 2.P.Raghunatha Reddy, 3. P.Sainatha Reddy, 4. Sri P.Sarva Reddy, 5.Smt.Kistamma, 6.Sri P.Harinatha Reddy, 7.Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy. 5. M.R.O. Weepangandla Lr.No.B/3108/2005, dated 28-6-2005. *** The attention 1. of Sri Vijaya Kumar Reddy, 2.Sri P.Raghunatha Reddy, 3.Sri Sainatha Reddy, 4.Sri P.Sarva Reddy, 5. Smt.Kistamma, 6.Sri P.Harinatha Reddy and 7.Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy, are informed that due to wrong information furnished by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla. The proposals were submitted by the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar to Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad for sale of lands under Section 82 of the Act of 30 of 1987 for eligible landless poor. After several complaints received from the villagers the Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla has been requested to re-conduct the enquiry for issuing the landless poor certificate for the above individuals. After detailed enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla has submitted his report vide his office Rc.No.B/3108/2005, dated 28-6- 2005 stating that the above individuals are not landless poor and they are having other lands in the village. As per guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated 11-3-2003 they are not come under category of landless poor. The then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar has also not declared that the individual are landless poor and he simply forwarded the Manager proposals for consideration of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. In view of the above the individuals are informed that they are not landless poor as per report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla. Hence applications hereby rejected. Sd/- Asst. Commissioner 5. Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners in both these Writ Petitions made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would contend that at one point of time the learned Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department was satisfied relating to the status of the writ petitioners as landless poor persons and in fact had recommended to the Commissioner, Endowments Department for taking the further steps, and by virtue of the change of the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, yet another order which is impugned in the present Writ Petition holding that the writ petitioners are not landless poor persons, cannot be made. The learned Counsel in all fairness would contend that no doubt there is a remedy by way of Appeal, but here is a case where there was no notice in accordance with the Rules governing the field. The learned Counsel also would point out that the Mandal Revenue Officer also was made a party, but no separate counter affidavit as such had been filed though the principal ground taken in the counter affidavits is to the effect that on the report of the said Mandal Revenue Officer, the order was made. The learned Counsel also would maintain that these are all independent tenants and the details and the particulars owned by these respective tenants also had not been specified. The learned Counsel also commented that there was no regular Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time and some incharge Mandal Revenue Officer was prevailed upon to give a particular type of report and without giving any further opportunity, making a subsequent order is definitely without jurisdiction and also in violation of the principles of natural justice for the reason that in a way it would amount to reviewing or modifying the prior order of the prior Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department and this is impermissible. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also the relevant provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience, and also the relevant Rules i.e., A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003, in short referred to as “Rules” for the purpose of convenience. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that in the prior order the alleged recommendation made by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, in a way is nonest in the eye of Law and the said order has no legal sanctity. No applications were made by these writ petitioners at any point of time in accordance with the Rules. The alleged letter said to have been communicated by the then Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to the Commissioner of Endowments may be of no consequence. The essential ingredients to be satisfied under Section 82 of the Act definitely had not been satisfied. These must be recognized landless poor persons and they should be existing lessees as per Law and the leases should be approved leases. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 82 of the Act and also Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules and would draw a distinction between Form-I and Form-II contemplated by Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(2) of the Rules respectively and would maintain that the procedure had been followed in these matters and hence the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that either the Rules had been violated or the principles of natural justice had not been followed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned Assistant Government Pleader also would contend that almost all these writ petitioners are employees having sufficient income and in any view of the matter, they would not fall under the definition of ‘landless poor persons’. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 7. Sri Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Institution had taken this Court through para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also para-4 of the counter affidavit and would maintain that as far as the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent is concerned, no reply affidavit as such had been filed and several of the averments made in the said counter affidavit in fact stand uncontroverted or unexplained. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 8 of the Rules and would maintain that inasmuch as there is clear proof relating to the extents owned by the writ petitioners, the impugned order cannot be found fault. The Counsel substantially adopted the averments made by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments in this regard. 8. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the records. 9. The reliefs prayed for in these Writ Petitions already had been specified above. The impugned order also had been referred to supra. Reference No.4 in the impugned order is application dated 9-7-2003 from Sri Vijaya Kumar Reddy, 2.P.Raghunatha Reddy, 3. P.Sainatha Reddy, 4. Sri P.Sarva Reddy, 5.Smt.Kistamma, 6.Sri P.Harinatha Reddy, 7.Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy. The 5th reference is Lr.No.B/3108/2005, dated 28-6-2005 of Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla. The 1st reference is notice under Section 82 from Manager of the Temple dated 2-5-2003. It may not be out of context if the relevant observation made by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in the impugned proceeding be referred to and the same reads as hereunder : “The then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar has also not declared that the individual are landless poor and he simply forwarded the Manager proposals for consideration of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. In view of the above the individuals are informed that they are not landless poor as per report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla. Hence applications hereby rejected.” The report of the FAC-Mandal Revenue Officer, Weepangandla, also is placed before this Court. 10. In W.P.No.14982/2005, it is averred that the petitioners are the cultivating tenants of the lands belonging to the 3rd respondent temple and they had been cultivating the said lands for the last about 8 to 15 years which is evident from the revenue records maintained by the revenue authorities. Further, all the petitioners had been in possession of about Acs.4.00 of dry land in Sy.Nos.697, 699 and 700 of Veepangandla village and they did not possess any other land other than the land belonging to the temple and they had been paying rents to the temple regularly. Further it is averred that while so, during the year 2003-2004, the respondents had conducted auction to the land in question and the petitioners had been the successful bidders in the said auction in respect of the land in their possession respectively. It is further averred that thereafter the petitioners on coming to know that their rights as landless poor persons, made an application to the 1st respondent for identifying them as landless poor persons and to continue them as landless poor of the lands in question. The 1st respondent having verified the true facts and on adjudicating the matter with reference to the records and the evidence produced by the petitioners and also the enquiries conducted through the Departmental Inspectors had come to the conclusion that the petitioners are the landless poor persons and they are entitled for the benefit under Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 and accordingly recommended to the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh through Letter No.A/441/2004 dated 25- 5-2004. It may be appropriate to look at the said proceeding which reads as hereunder : Office of the Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar Lr.No.A/441/2004, Dated : 26-5-2004 To The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. Sir, Sub:- Endowments Department – Mahaboobnagar District – Sri Chinna Kesava Swamy Temple – Veepangandla (V) & (M) – Sale of lands to the sitting tenants – Proposal – Submitted. Ref: 1. This office Rc.No.A/441/2004 dt.31-3-2004 2. Application from the sitting tenants, Dt.25-5- 2004. Kind attention is invited to the reference 1st cited, in which I have submitted the proposals for according permission sale the lands to the sitting tenants for purchasing the land. The applicants have submitted the certificate stating that they are landless poor and are not having the land except the proposed land and they have submitted the certificate from the Sarpanch of the village stating that having 50 yards of house and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veepangandla (V) has issued no land certificate the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veepangandla (V) has issued income certificates stating that the applicants have getting income of Rs.11,000/- per year. I submitting herewith certificate copies for taking further action occupants have also submitted the copy of Pahani for the year 2001-2002 in which their names have been shown as occupants the copy of the Pahani along with the Market value certificate issued by the Sub- Registrar, Kollapur are submitted herein. In view of the above, I submit that the applicants are eligible to purchase the land under Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987. Hence I request to kindly accord permission to the sitting tenants to purchase the land under provision of the Section 82 of the Act. As per G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments-1), dated 11-3-2002. I am submitting herewith their application along with certificate for further action along with rough sketch of the proposed land. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Assistant Commissioner. It may be appropriate to refer to reference No.1 i.e., Rc.No.A/441/2004, dated 31-3-2004 and also reference No.2 i.e., application from the sitting tenants dated 25-5- 2004. After referring to certain facts it was observed in the aforesaid proceeding: “In view of the above, I submit that the applicants are eligible to purchase the land under Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987”. It is also stated that the 1st respondent herein also through his proceedings Rc.No.A/1817/2003 dated 7-7-2004 directed the 3rd respondent to collect 1/3rd of the lease amount from the petitioners in view of the fact that they are the landless poor persons and the petitioners also were directed to pay the said lease amounts. In pursuance of the said directions, the petitioners had also paid the lease amounts on 8-7-2004 to the 3rd respondent for the year 2004-2005 and receipts were also issued to that effect. The said proceeding Rc.No.A/1817/2003 dated 7-7-2004, reads as hereunder : Office of the Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar Rc.No.A/1817/2003, Dated 7-7-2004: Sub:- Endowments Department – Mahaboobnagar District – Sri Chinna Keshava Swamy Temple – Veepangandla (V) & (M) – Collection of lease amount from the landless poor – Certain instructions issued – Regarding. Ref:- 1. Application of the landless poor individuals, dated 11-6-2004. 2. Lr.No.SCEST/WGL/2004/LL, dated 11-6- 2004. 3. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad Circular Instructions Rc.No.H1/10728/2004, dated 4-6-2004. *** In view of the Circular instructions issued vide reference IIIrd cited, the Manager of the subject temple is directed to collect the 1/3rd of lease amount from the sitting tenants if they are landless poor of the subject temple. The landless poor of the subject temple are requested to pay the 1/3rd of lease amount to the Manager of the subject temple and obtain permanent receipt. Sd/- K.Hari Kishan Assistant Commissioner It is further stated that when the 3rd respondent attempted to conduct auction of the lands in question during the year 2004, the petitioners filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.14180/2004 questioning the said action and this Court was pleased to grant interim stay of the proposed action and the said Writ Petition, now it is brought to the notice of this Court, was dismissed as infructuous. Further, it is stated that while the things stood thus, the petitioners made representation dated 12-4-2005 to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioners to pay the lease amount for the year 2005-2006 and though the petitioners had offered to pay the lease amounts to the 3rd respondent, he could not receive the same as the 1st respondent had not issued any proceedings for the current year. As the petitioners had been in possession of the lands in question for the last several years and were already adjudged as landless poor persons by the 1st respondent, they had started agricultural operations in the lands in question and seedling of groundnut, paddy, green gram etc., had been taken up investing huge amounts on the said crops. However, the 1st respondent appeared to have issued proceedings in Rc.No.B/441/2004, dated 6-7-2005 and communicated the same to the petitioners. In the said proceedings it was claimed that as per the detailed enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veepangandla Mandal, the petitioners are not the landless poor persons and therefore the applications of the petitioners are rejected. Questioning the said proceedings dated 6-7-2005 the present Writ Petition had been filed. It is further stated that the petitioners were already adjudged as landless poor persons by the 1st respondent as early as in the year 2004 and the same was communicated to the petitioners. Thus, the decision was already taken by the competent authority under Rule 3 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11-3-2003. The same was also communicated to the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that if at all the 3rd respondent is aggrieved by the said proceedings, it is open to the 3rd respondent to file Appeal as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules, but no such Appeal written statement filed and the said proceedings dated 25-5-2004 became final. Therefore the 1st respondent has no power or authority to reopen or review the said issue once again under Rule 3 of the Rules. Further, no notice was issued to the petitioners before issuing the impugned proceedings. Further, the 4th respondent also never conducted any enquiry on notice to the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners came to know on enquiries made after the receipt of the impugned proceedings that the 3rd respondent, taking advantage of the fact that the post of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veepangandla is vacant and the Superintendent of the said office is the in-charge of the post of the Mandal Revenue Officer, prevailed over him and got a report in a clandestine manner without proper verification with reference to the records and on such report the 1st respondent now appeared to have passed the impugned order. The report of the Mandal Revenue Officer was also not furnished to the petitioners at any relevant point of time. It is also further stated that there is no justification for the 1st respondent to ignore the reports submitted by their own Officers and to rely upon the report of the 4th respondent. The 1st respondent has no power or authority to reopen the issue. Mere change in the Officer holding the post of the 1st respondent will not entitle them to pass orders from time to time when there is a specified mechanism under the Rules. As the 3rd respondent failed to file any Appeal within 30 days as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules, the decision adjudging the petitioners as landless poor persons became final and binding on the respondents. Certain rights had been accrued to the petitioners by virtue of such decision which was taken in the year 2004 and such accrued rights cannot be allowed to be taken away by the respondents in an arbitrary manner in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also further averred that the petitioners did not own any lands except the lands which are in their occupation as tenants of the 3rd respondent temple. Any report or the information gathered by the respondents contrary to the same is without any basis and contrary to the true facts. Further, had there been any opportunity either before the 4th respondent or before the 1st respondent, the petitioners would have demonstrated the true facts before them. There is no justification for the respondents to act in such an unfair manner being public authorities. The respondents had acted in an irresponsible manner while infringing the rights of the petitioners. The reason given in the impugned proceeding that the then Assistant Commissioner, Mahaboobnagar had not decided that the individuals are landless poor and that he simply forwarded the Manager proposals for consideration of the Commissioner is totally false and contrary to the true facts. Further it is stated that as per Rule 3 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.379, the 1st respondent is under statutory obligation to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners before passing any order under Rule 3 of the Rules. In the instant case, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioners by the 1st respondent though he is re-exercising the power under Rule 3 of the Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents is totally without power or authority and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the petitioners are entitled to approach this Court questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent without availing the remedy of Appeal. The petitioners had already raised the crops by investing huge amounts and if they are to be dispossessed by taking advantage of the impugned proceedings or any auction of the leasehold rights of the lands in question is conducted, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The petitioners are totally dependent on the lands in question. The respondents 1 to 3 had been taking steps to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of the lands in question. Further, so far the petitioners were not dispossessed and they had been in continuous possession of the lands. 11. W.V.M.P.No.2530/2005 in W.P.No.14982/2005 had been filed to vacate the interim order dated 22-7-2005 granted in W.P.M.P.No.19038/2005 and 19039/2005 and a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 and 2. A reply affidavit thereto also had been filed. Separate counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. However, no separate specific reply affidavit had been filed in relation to the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is averred that Chennakesava Swamy Temple situate at Veepangandla village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District is a very old temple and it is registered as 6C temple and the said temple is having lands in Sy.Nos.17, 473, 697, 699 and 700, having a total extent of Acs.30-35 cents. It is further averred in para-5 that the petitioners are in occupation of the 3rd respondent-temple lands and the petitioners are not landless poor persons inasmuch as they own other lands in the village in Sy.Nos.319/A, 320, 696/AA, 701/A, 702, 280/A and 755 having a total extent of more than Acs.5- 00 each and therefore they do not come within the meaning of landless poor persons. It is further stated that the then Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department had addressed a letter bearing No.A/441/2004 dated 26-5-2004 wherein it had been stated that the petitioners had submitted a certificate from the Sarpanch of the village that they are having 50 yards of house plot and also the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued a No Land Certificate and requested to consider their case for selling the temple lands in their favour and enclosing their applications and the letter addressed to the Commissioner for necessary orders seeking permission to sell the lands under Section 82 of the Act. The said letter addressed by the then Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to the Commissioner of Endowments does not declare that the petitioners are landless poor persons and the said letter cannot be