THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 5169 OF 2005 BETWEEN: P. Sasibhushan Prasad, S/o P. Seshagiri Rao ------ PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ramkote, Hyderabad and one another ----- RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 5169 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER: 1. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 15.3.2005. 2. The Writ Petition is filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land in an extent of 0.66 cents in S.No. 291/Petitioner , Adivi Varam Village, Visakhapatnam, without following the due process of law is highly illegal and unjustified with direction to the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land in an extent of 0.66 cents in S.No. 291/Petitioner, Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam, without following the due process of law. 3. Heard Sri Ravi Kumar representing Sri V.K.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, counsel representing the second respondent and A.G.P for Endowments representing the first respondent. 4. The counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The stand taken in the counter affidavit and also the additional affidavit as well would maintain that inasmuch as the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property being not in dispute unless and until the petitioner is evicted by due process of law, such possession not to be disturbed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would maintain that the appeal is pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer and unless the appeal is finally disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it cannot be said that the alleged patta said to have been granted in favor of the second respondent would attain any finality. The counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to the Writ Petitioner to approach the Civil Court. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that in the light of the stand taken by the second respondent-the Executive Officer, by the institution in question, no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. 6. Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, representing the second respondent had taken this court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that the Writ Petition cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Heard the counsel and perused the stand taken by the parties and also material papers available on record. 8. The proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural, the Interlocutory Application and also the appeal, which had been preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam had been placed before this Court. 9. It is stated by the writ petitioner that he purchased the land admeasuring 0.66 cents in S.No. 291/P, Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam on 16.8.2000 from the legal heirs of Sri Lakshmi Narasimham for a sale consideration of Rs. 99,000/- and the same had been registered as Document No. 2874 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam on 16.8.2000 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference from anybody. 10. Further it is averred that recently that the petitioner visited his land and the respondents have been altering the land and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and when the petitioner questioned the respondents, the respondents had not replied properly, therefore, he approached the Registrar of Gopalapatnam and made an application for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate on 17.9.2004. In the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam clearly shows that he had purchased the land in question from the Vendors. 11. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the respondents and sown the document relating to his land and encumbrance certificate to show his ownership and possession to the said land. But the respondents have not cared for it and they are further proceeding with the alternation of the land. The action of the respondents in interfering with his land without following any due process of law, or issuing any acquisition notification is highly illegal and if such action of the respondents is allowed to continue, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. In reply to paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it is stated that the second respondent is the absolute owner of the land covered by S.No. 291 of the Adivivaram Village and as such, the vendor of the writ petition had no right to sell the land belonging to 2nd respondent and the petitioner cannot get any right over the land of Ac. 0.66 cents said to have been purchased by him. It is stated that Adivivaram is an Inam Village and the lands in that village are inam lands held by the second respdnent, Simhachalam, Devasthanam, as per the proceedings issued under Section 3(3) of the Inam Abolition Act, 37/1956 in AIA NO. 3/1977 dated 9.8.1977. It is submitted that subsequently the Mandal Revenue Officer, Viaskhapatnam (rural) conducted an enquiry under Section 7 read with 4 of the Inams Abolition Act, 37/1956 and granted ryotwari patta in favour of the Devasthanam for the entire land covered by survey no. 291 of Adivivaram Village under proceedings bearing No. Ala C.No. 2/96 dated 14.8.1996 and the said order had become final. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner and his vendor had no right title or claim to be in possession in respect of the said land and hence the Writ is liable to be dismissed on this ground. 13. In reply to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is absolutely false to allege that the respondents are altering the land besides the said allegation is vague. It is averred that the petitioner did not even mention the alleged nature of the alternation of the land said to have been made by the second respondent. There is no need for the respondents to alter the land in any way. It is further submitted that the sale deed said to have been obtained by the Writ Petitioner is not valid, much less binding, as the second respondent is the absolute owner of the land, as stated above. Further the petitioner cannot get any right over the land on the basis of encumbrance certificate said to have been obtained by him from the Sub-Registrar, Gopalpatnam. Therefore, the question of interfering with the possession of the petitioner without following any due process of law does not arise. In such circumstances, it is stated that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. G.O.Ms.No. 189 Revenue (Endowments.IV) Department, Hyderabad, dated 27.2.1993 had been relied upon and the same reads as under: “Government of Andhra Pradesh Abstract Endowments Department –Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam (V) , Visakhapatnam District-Conveyanance of Melivaram Rights in respect of land belonging to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple Permission-Accorded-Orders- Issued. Revenue (Endowments.IV) Department G.O.Ms.No. 189. Dated 27.2.1993 From the Commissioner, Endowments Department Hyderabad Lr.No. M1/11104/90 District Collector . 19.11.1991. Order: In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad in his letter read above, the Government after careful consideration of the matter and in exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) hereby accord permission to the Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Simhachalam for conveyanance of the Melivaram Rights in respect of Inam land measuring an extent of . 13.50 cts., in S.No. 289/Petitioner and 291/Petitioner situated in Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District belonging to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Simhachalam in favour of Sri L.V.R.V. Prasad. 2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad shall take further action in the matter. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) M.S. RAJAJEE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabd. The Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District.” 15. The sketch plan , ‘No Objection Certificate’ and sale deed also had been placed before this Court. A reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) conducted an enquiry under Section 7 read with 4 of the Inams Abolition Act 37/1956 and granted ryotwari patta in favour of the Devasthanam or the entire land covered by S.No. 291 of Adivivaram Village under proceedings bearing No. A/ .No. 2/96, dated 14.8.1996 is not true and correct. The Mandal Revenue Officer cannot grant ryotwari patta for the entire land in S.No. 291 because pursuant to directions given by this Court in W.P.No. 7234 of 1991 and W.P.No. 1791 of 1993, respondents implemented G.O.Ms.No. 189, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 27.2.1993 and conveyed melivaram rights in respect of Inam land of an extent of Ac. 13.50 cents in S.No. 289/Petitioner, 290/Petitioner and 291/part after collecting the 1/3rd sale value the respondents issued No Objection Certificate in the year 1994. It is stated that the respondents suppressed the proceedings and contending that the vendor of the petitioner had no title over the property. The respondents cannot now contend that the entire land in S.No. 291 belongs to the respondents in view of the ryotwari patta issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the respondents. The allegation that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer has become final is absolutely false. The vendors of the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. 16. Further it is averred that the officials of the second respondent had removed the constructions and fencing made by the petitioner highhandedly and had taken away the entire material. There is a Mango garden in the vacant site. The petitioner is in possession of the property and the second respondent has to follow the procedure before taking any steps as contemplated under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act. The allegation that the second respondent is not interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property is not true and correct. The photographs filed in support of the petition establish the highhanded act of the second respondent. 17. It is also averred that the allegations that the petitioner has absolutely no right/title over the subject land nor any possession of the said land is absolutely false. It is submitted that if the second respondent is in possession of the property there is no need for the officials of the second respondent to demolish the structures. It is submitted that even assuming that the petitioner and his vendors had no title over the property, the authorities cannot take the law into their own hands without following the procedure. 18. On 18th November 2007, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner and it is averred that the second respondent had got filed his counter affidavit in the Writ Petition and the petitioner had filed his reply affidavit. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed another application in W.P.M.P.No. 26015 of 2005, seeking a direction against the respondents not to assign the land in question pending disposal of the writ petition. It is submitted that in the said application, the second respondent had got his counter affidavit filed, which runs contrary to the plea taken by him in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, and further the pleas raised by the second respondent would have an effect of said tracking the case and therefore, the petitioner advised that he should file the additional/ reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the second respondent in W.P.M.P.No. 26015 of 2005, and he further advised that certain additional material also need to be placed before the Court in proof of the malafide attitude of the respondents, more particularly the second respondent. 19. Further, it is averred that the second respondent submitted in his counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition that the Temple alone is the absolute owner of the land covered by S.No. 291 of Adavivaram Village of the Visakhapatnam District, where the Temple was granted a ryotwari patta and that the vendors of the petitioner had no manner of right to sell the same and the petitioner would not be clothed with any right in the property and sought the writ petition to be dismissed. 20. It is also stated that in the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in WPMP No. 26915 of 2005, the second respondent had admitted the issuance of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued to one Mr. LVRV Prasad, for conveyance of Melvaram rights in the property but contended certain falsities about the said ‘No Objection Certificate’, which the petitioner was advised to submit that they need to be clarified; Secondly, it is submitted that the second respondent alleged that Mr. L.V.R.V. Prasad failed to pay the sum demanded and therefore the transaction between the Temple and the individual is not complete; Thirdly, that the temple was granted a patta for the lands covered by S.Nos. 289,290 and 291 of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District, vide orders in AIAC No. 2/1996-A, dated 14th August 1996; Fourthly, the second respondent contended that as the Temple had not executed any sale deed in favour of anybody much less L.V.R.V. Prasad, and therefore, the petitioner would not get any right in the land in question; Fourthly, the second respondent contends that since no sale deed is executed, no rights would flow into Mr. L.V.R.V. Prasad or the petitioner; Fifthly, the second respondent referred to one writ petition which had no nexus or bearing on the present proceedings, which are only intended for the purpose of misleading the Court and diverting the issue by prejudicing the mind of the Court; Sixthly, the second respondent contended that the petitioner attempted to raise a shed ‘unauthorizedly’ and that the land protection squad of the second respondent temple had got removed the same. 21. It is further averred that the petitioner is advised to submit ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued to Mr. L.V.R.V. Prasad was issued on his complying with the demanded payment, as per the orders of this Court, and the G.O 189 and the NOC does not stipulate any reservations, as contended by the second respondent. It is also submitted that once the payment was admittedly received by the second respondent as full and final satisfaction, issuance of a fresh demand does not arise and there is no material to prove the said contention of the second respondent. Further that once the GO 189 attained finality and remained unchallenged and acted upon, it is not open to the second respondent to take a reverse turn. Similarly, it may kindly be observed that it is the second respondent that had got the particulars of money payable as per the basic value register from the concerned SRO’s office and raised a demand for the payment, which was complied by Mr. L.V.R.V. Prasad. Therefore, the question of raising a demand for additional amount would not arise. More over it had also to be seen that except for making a vague reference of some proceedings, there is no material placed before the Court to substantiate the said contention. 22. Further it is stated that the assertion of the second respondent that the temple was granted a patta under the provisions of the A.P (AA) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, vide the proceedings referred in para 5 of the counter affidavit, is an object falsity, for the reason that the petitioner had already placed the relevant record of the grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority & RDO, Visakhapatnam. It is further submitted that as the Appellate Authority was not proceeding with the disposal of the appeal proceedings, the appellants before the RDO, had filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 20385 of 2007 on the file of this Court, which was disposed with a direction to the RDO, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months form the date of the order after giving due and reasonable opportunity to both the parties. It is further stated that the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 27th September 2007, therefore, the assertion that the temple was granted a patta, is an abject falsity. 23. Further, it is averred in para 8 that the land in question in W.P.No. 16332 of 2005 relate to a different land and both on facts and circumstances the said proceedings had no bearing on the present proceedings. It is also submitted that in both G.O.Ms. bearing Nos. 31 and 253 relate to regularization of unauthorized occupations and the petitioner had applied for regularization under the then GO in force, i.e., G.O.Ms.No. 31 and when the action was being delayed, he was constrained to file W.P.No. 16332 of 2005 and during the pendency of the said proceedings, G.O. 253 was issued which superseded G.O.No. 31 and both the GOs deal with the same subject and some variation as to the revival of the committee was made in the second G.O. 24. Further, an additional counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent dated 20.12.2007, wherein it is averred that the respondent may be permitted to state briefly the relevant facts of the matter. It is a fact that Sri L.V.R.V. Prasad was issued a no objection certificate dated 10.9.1994 of the Devasthanam for an extent Ac 13.50 cents of land in Adivivaram Village subject to the conditions mentioned therein. In view of the difference of rate as per the letter addressed by the Sub-Registrar, the Devasthanam issued a notice to Sri L.V.R.V. Prasad to pay the differential amount of Rs. 4,35,600/- partly and another amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 9.4.1996 with an assurance to pay the balance amount shortly. The said amount was not paid and therefore the matter was put in abeyance. Sri L.V.R.V. Prasad did not obtain any sale deed till today. Therefore, it is incorrect and untenable to contend that there are certain falsities about the said no objection certificate nor any malafides can be attributed to the respondents nor any contrary pleas taken in the counter affidavits. 25. Further, it is averred that the Devasthanam was granted Ryotwari Patta under the proceedings under Section 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act, dated 14.8.1996 in respect of S.No. 291 of Adivivaram Village. It is not known how these proceedings will become abject falsity in view of the pendency of appeal before the RDO., Visakhapatnam. It is a fact that the orders passed in W.P.No. 16332 of 2007 mentioned in the counter affidavit only with a view to show that the petitioner is seeking to regularize the unauthorized encroachment of the land Ac. 0.22 cents nearer to the schedule land. It is also a fact the respondent’s protection squad removed unauthorized shed raised in land covered by S.No. 275 of Adivivaram Village, which is also nearer to the schedule land. 26. It is also stated that the respondent did not interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the writ petition. It is a fact that the petitioner herein seeking a direction not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of an extent of Ac. 0.66 cents of land covered by S.No. 291 of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District without following the due process of law, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 27. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, it is clear that the appeal had been preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the said appeal is pending disposal. In the light of the substantial stand taken that the granting of patta had not attained finality, this court is not inclined to express any opinion on merits of the matter, especially in the light of the fact that the said Revenue Divisional Officer is not the party before this Court in the present Writ Petition. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, let the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam dispose of the appeal, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status quo as on today shall be maintained. The parties are also at liberty to pursue the other remedies available to them. Except making this observation and granting a limited order, no positive direction as such, can be given in the present Writ Petition. 28. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J DATE: 28--01--2008. KA