THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.11427 OF 2002 Dated:30.12.2010 Between: Smt. Buddi Reddy Suseelamma and others .. Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.11427 of 2002 ORDER: The four petitioners filed the instant writ petition. First petitioner is the wife and the second and third petitioners are sons of one Badireddy Bala Subba Reddy (BBSR). Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.01.2002 and 17.04.2002, they filed the instant petition. This is a second round of litigation and therefore the writ petition draws sustenance from an order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition. The land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No.196 and Acs.3.48 cents in Survey No.248 situated at B.Kodur Village and Mandal allegedly was sold by Vaddemanu Venkata Subbaiah, Chinna Subbaiah and others, who were Bhajanthries (temple musicians) of the fourth respondent temple to BBSR in 1995. A sale deed was allegedly registered subsequently. Claiming it to be endowment land, the fourth respondent notified auction of the said land. Feeling aggrieved, BBSR filed W.P.No.18783 of 1995 seeking declaration that the auction is bad and illegal. By an order, dated 30.11.1995, the writ petition was disposed of. The first respondent herein was directed to ascertain the factum of possession of the petitioners and to take appropriate action according to law. In obedience to the mandamus in W.P.No.18783 of 1995, the first respondent conducted enquiry and by proceedings No.Ref.B/159/96, dated 07.01.2002, advised the Endowments Department to take action for protection of rights of the Bhajanthries to the extent of getting produce of the land in question for their service to the deities. The Revenue Divisional Officer also observed that the land in question is registered as Inam land and that Bhajanthries, who are rendering service to the deities, sold away the land under a mistaken impression that it is their land and that the petitioners’ predecessor failed to produce recorded evidence of title of having obtained pattas for the lands registered as Inam lands. After death of BBSR on 18.07.2001, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 filed a petition seeking review. They also filed an application to come on record as legal representatives. By endorsement being L.Dis.B.181/2002, dated 17.04.2002, the review petition was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. The first respondent filed counter affidavit. The brief averments thereof are as follows. As per the classification and nature of the land in Resurvey Settlement Register, the land is registered in the names of Sri Venugopala Swamy, Anjaneya Swamy, Ramalingeswara Swamy and Nallagvonda Narasimha Swamy. The land is endowments land and all the revenue records including 10(1) adangal reflect the names of the pattedars. The petitioners vendors were rendering Bhajanthri service and were allowed to enjoy the crops without any rights of alienation. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18783 of 1995, enquiry was conducted after issuing notices to the interested persons. During the enquiry, the petitioners claimed that they purchased the land from Bhajanthries and the Endowments Department claimed that it is their land. As there is a dispute regarding possession, the Revenue Divisional Officer personally conducted enquiry and found that the land is vacant with shrub growth and is not in possession of anybody. Insofar as the enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, (for brevity, Inams Act), the Revenue Divisional Officer admits that no record is available to show the grant of patta in favour of the vendors of the petitioners. There is also no record to show that ryotwari patta was issued in favour of the deities. The Revenue Divisional Officer, however, asserts that the land belongs to the Endowments Department, who are required to take action under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, Endowments Act). It is also stated that in 1996, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, after due enquiry passed orders on 28.11.1997 declaring BBSR as encroacher of the subject land. The encroacher was directed to vacate the land within 15 days and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kadapa, was directed to take possession of the land. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit denying the counter averments. The respondents contend that the subject land is Inam land registered in the name of religious institution, namely, the fourth respondent. Admittedly, as of now, neither any Inam record is available nor a ryotwari patta was granted under Section 7(1) of the Inams Act in favour of the fourth respondent. The counter allegation of the first respondent that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, passed order, dated 28.11.1997, under Section 83(1) of the Endowments Act remains uncontroverted. Therefore, there is no clarity with regard to the nature of the land or nature of possession. This Court requested the Advocate General to appear in the matter. After getting instructions, he submitted that unless and until the land is determined to be inam land belonging to the religious institution, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot exercise any jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Endowments Act nor can resume the endowments land. Therefore, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 07.01.2002, impugned in this writ petition to the extent it makes observations adverse to the petitioners, is unsustainable. Insofar as the claim of the fourth respondent is concerned, as rightly contended by the Advocate General, it is always open to the fourth respondent to seek a declaration and necessary directions under Section 87 of the Endowments Act before the Endowments Tribunal constituted under Section 162 of the Endowments Act. Till such time, the fourth respondent takes action, there shall be status quo obtaining as on today. If the petitioners are not in possession of the subject land, this order shall not be construed as enabling them to take possession of land. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 30.12.2010 KH