IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17276 of 2000 Between: Y.M.K.High School, Adoni Kurnool District, Rep by its President-- Smt. Sivaleelamma, W/o. late Sri Mallappa, R/o. Adoni. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Revenue (Endt-IV) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endownments, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments & Manager, Sri Gavi Math Samsthanam, Uravakonda, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the land admeasuring Ac.3-50 cents in S.No. 24 of vengalapuram village, Adoni Taluk, Kurnool District, in favour of the petitioner School, even after receiving the cost of the land, as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and further declare that the petitioner-School is entitled to get the land in question registered and consequently declare the proceedings in Rc. No. 165/81, dt. 31.8.2000 issued by the third respondent as illegal, improper and unreasonable and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGAIAH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.17276 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not registering the land covered by an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.24 of Vengalapuram Village, Adoni Taluk, Kurnool District in favour of the petitioner-Y.M.K. High school even after receiving the cost of land, as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and further declare that the said school is entitled to get the land in question registered and consequently to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.165/81, dated 31.08.2000 issued by the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as illegal, improper and unreasonable. 2) The petitioner-school is a private aided school and it was started in the year 1947. There are 41 posts of teaching and non- teaching, which were admitted to grant-in-aid. The total extent of land in Survey No.24 is Ac.7.50 cents. The building is located in four acres of land and the remaining extent of Ac.3.50 cents is vacant and it belongs to the third respondent. It is being used as a playground by the school since its inspection. The petitioner-school made several representations to the respondents to alienate the property in favour of the school. The first respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1820, dated 06.11.1982 according permission for the sale of land in question in favour of the school for playground and to the Teaching Staff Cooperative House Building Society at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. The respondents 1 and 2 did not issue consequential proceedings for alienation of the land in question. The husband of the present President of the School died and hence, the sale could not take place. The third respondent issued a notice on 17.10.1995 intimating that the cost of land as fixed by the first respondent would come to Rs.52,500/-. The third respondent further intimated that the interest has to be paid which comes to Rs.1,73,457/-. The third respondent requested the school to pay the amount and get the land registered, failing which the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 will be cancelled. The petitioner-school was permitted to deposit Rs.52,500/- being the cost of land on 30.03.1996 through a cheque. The third respondent received the same under acknowledgement. After issuance of the orders of the first respondent, one Sri A.T. Veera Reddy approached the Civil Court concerned and filed A.T.C.No.5 of 1982 in respect of the land in question. When it was dismissed, he preferred A.T.A.No.18 of 1985 before the District Judge, Kurnool. In view of the pendency of the case and ill-health of the then President of the school, who died subsequently on 17.05.1982, the interest amount payable to the third respondent could not be paid. There was no response from the respondents, more particularly third respondent. The petitioner paid Rs.50,000/- on 24.07.2000 to adjust the amount towards interest. The petitioner assured that the remaining interest, if any, payable will be paid at the time of registration of the land. Though the petitioner is willing to pay reasonable interest, the respondents are not coming forward to receive the said amount and register the land in question. Hence, this writ petition for reliefs as mentioned above. 3) The third respondent filed counter affidavit with the following averments in brief: The husband of the present President of the school submitted a representation on 11.11.1981 to the second respondent- Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, requesting permission to sell the land for an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.24 of Vengalapuram village, to the petitioner-school for the purpose of playground. After due publication in the gazette, permission was accorded for the sale of the land to the school for the purpose of playground and to the Cooperative House Building Society of Teachers Staff, through G.O.Rt.No.1820 Revenue (Endts. Dept. IV), dated 06.11.1982 at the rates mentioned therein, otherwise than the public auction. In pursuance of the instructions of the Commissioner of Endowments to get the sale deed registered after paying the sale amount of Rs.52,500/- and the interest accrued thereon, the second notice was also issued to the president of the School on 17.10.1995 requesting to settle the matter immediately. Final notice was also issued on 07.12.1995 to the petitioner- school to settle the matter before the end of December 1995. The present President Smt. Y. Sivaleelamma made a representation to the Government on 30.10.1996 narrating the details about the delay for registration of the land. The petitioner school issued a cheque on 30.03.1996 for Rs.52,500/- and it was sent for collection and received an amount of Rs.52,333/-, which was kept in deposit and informed the petitioner school that further action will be taken in the matter soon after receipt of the instructions from the Commissioner of Endowments. The petitioner school has not taken any interest till 1996 even after disposal of the tenancy matter before the Special Officer as well as the appellate Tribunal in the year 1987. The third respondent further mentioned that a report was submitted to the second respondent on 29.07.2000 informing about non-payment of sale consideration and seeking further instructions in the matter. The basic value as on the date of filing of the counter was Rs.485/- per square yard. The petitioner school has prolonged the matter for getting the land registered for a period of 28 years. The teachers association has got the land registered in the year 1983 itself, whereas the school authorities have come forward at the belated stage to purchase the land at the old rate. Therefore, the third respondent requested to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 4) The third respondent also filed additional counter affidavit wherein he contended that the benefit, if any, by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.1820, dated 06.11.1982 gets extinguished and it cannot be enforced after lapse of 2½ decades. The writ petitioner school virtually became encroacher of property belonging to the respondents. Now, the value of the subject land increases abnormally. Since the petitioner-school did not come forward to pay the sale consideration within the reasonable period, it cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5) The petitioner, which is a private school, made a representation to the respondents to alienate the property of Ac.3.50 cents in its favour. The first respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1820, dated 06.11.1982 according permission for the sale of land in question in favour of the petitioner school for playground and to the Teaching Staff Cooperative House Building Society at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. The petitioner- school did not take any steps to get the land registered. Therefore, the third respondent issued a registered notice on 17.10.1995 informing that the cost of land in question would be Rs.52,500/- and the interest accrued thereon would be Rs.1,73,457/-. The third respondent informed the petitioner-school that unless the amount is paid and get the land registered, the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 would be cancelled. The petitioner school paid only Rs.52,500/- on 30.03.1996 and later did not pay any amount till the year 2000. On 24.07.2000 the petitioner-school paid Rs.50,000/- towards interest. 6) The allegation of the petitioner school is that the respondents are not coming forward to receive the reasonable interest and register the land in question. Whereas the respondents are contending that the petitioner school did not evince any interest and did not respond to the notices given by them and the petitioner school offers to pay the amount at the belated stage. Therefore, the petitioner school is not entitled to any relief. 7) Though the G.O.Rt.No.1820 was issued by the Government on 06.11.1982 granting permission to sell the land in favour of the petitioner school, the petitioner school did not avail the opportunity for a very long time. The second respondent having waited for more than 10 years issued a notice on 18.01.1994 requesting the petitioner school to pay the sale proceeds to a tune of Rs.1,59,307/- including interest on the sale amount of Rs.52,500/- as per the orders of the Government and the Commissioner of Endowments. Though the petitioner school acknowledged receipt, did not evince any interest to pay the sale consideration with interest to get the land registered in its favour. Subsequently, on 17.10.1995 another notice was also issued informing that if the petitioner school does not pay the sale proceeds within seven days with interest for the period from 09.12.1983 to 16.10.1995 at bank rate, the sale order standing in favour of the petitioner-school will be recommended to the Government for cancellation. A total sum of Rs.2,25,957/- has to be paid by the petitioner school. If there is no response to the petitioner school within seven days, notice will be published in daily Eenadu newspaper and action will be taken against the petitioner school for recovery of the loss caused to the Math and after cancellation of the orders noted in the reference on 13.03.1996 the petitioner school sent a cheque for Rs.52,500/- through registered post, which was received by the respondents on 02.04.1996. Afterwards the third respondent sent a report to the second respondent recommending for issuance of orders for sale, but no orders have been received from the Commissioner of Endowments till then. It is further mentioned in the said letter that after deducting the expenses for the collection of cheque amount, the remaining amount will be kept in the sundry account and the action will be taken immediately after receipt of instructions from the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. On 24.07.2000 the petitioner school addressed a letter to the third respondent informing that they are paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- through a cheque towards interest. It is further mentioned that as per the calculation of bank interest, they will pay the remaining interest amount before the registration of the land. On 31.08.2000 the third respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner school mentioning that after receiving order from the Commissioner of Endowments, it will be informed to the petitioner school and the amount will be collected from it. The cheque for Rs.50,000/- is accordingly returned. It is further mentioned that without getting the land registered, no construction or other activities can be taken and if no such activities are taken up, the petitioner school will be held responsible for the same and action will be taken according to law. 8) Though the petitioner admitted that it is liable to pay the bank rate of interest, did not choose to pay the amount as calculated by the petitioner. The petitioner school requesting the respondents for sale of the land and the respondents offering to sell the land is a contract between the parties and if there is any breach of contract, the remedy to the petitioner school is to approach the civil Court concerned for appropriate remedy. 9) It is the specific version of the respondents that despite receipt of notice, the petitioner school did not express its readiness to pay the amount due to the respondents and to get the land registered. Whether the petitioner school did not express its readiness, whether undue delay has been caused by the petitioner school in expressing readiness to fulfil the terms of contract and whether the petitioner school is liable to pay interest to the respondents etc., are the matters to be decided by the civil Court. Therefore, no direction can be given in this writ petition. I do not find any grounds to accede to the prayer of the petitioner school as mentioned above. 10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner-school is at liberty to agitate about its rights before the appropriate forum if the law permits. No order as to costs. ______________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: .02.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GSNM}