IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.20590 of 2005 Between: Sri A.Sivaramaiah and another. … Petitioners And Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, D.No.122, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, reptd., by its Administrative Officer and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri O.Manoher Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.R.Prabhakar for R.1. AGP for Endowments for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notice in Rc.No.A3/1/86, dated 20-8-2005 issued by respondent No.1 The property in question, viz., 4.16 cents in Survey No.242-B of Tirupati village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, belonged to respondent No.1-Mutt. One Arunagiri Rama Swamy, claiming to be holder of a permanent lease obtained from the Mahant of respondent No.1-Mutt, conveyed the said property to a third party and the said property reached the hands of the mother of the petitioners under a sale transaction taken place in the year 1958 between her and one Perumalla Mudali. The Mahant of respondent No.1 ﬁled O.S.No.358 of 1971 against the mother of the petitioners for recovery of possession of the said property. The said suit was dismissed by the II Additional District Munsif, Tirupati, by his judgment dated 23-4-1977. In the said judgment, the trial Court held that the lease in favour of Rama Swamy, under which the petitioners’ mother claimed her title was a void transaction. While giving the ﬁnding that respondent No.1 was the owner of the property, the said suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. A.S.No.68 of 1977 filed by the Mahant before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, was dismissed on 21-6-1985. The said judgment, assailed in Second Appeal No.59 of 1986 in this Court, received aﬃrmation of this Court by judgment dated 30-12-1987 and the SLP ﬁled against the said Judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 31-3-1997. The impugned notice was given by respondent No.1 in Form-I under Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short “the Rules”) read with sub-Section (1) of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). A perusal of the said notice shows that the subsisting lease in respect of an agricultural land speciﬁed in the schedule therein stood cancelled with immediate eﬀect in view of sub-Section (1) of Section 82 of the Act and, therefore, the petitioners were called upon to hand over possession of the lands. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the whole premise on which the impugned notice was issued is erroneous; and that in O.S.No.358 of 1971 the trial Court gave a speciﬁc ﬁnding that the lease was void and the relief of recovery of possession was declined on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. He, therefore, submitted that respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Act and recover possession of the land. Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that the case of the petitioners’ mother in the suit was that she was entitled to be in possession on the basis of the lease granted to her by her predecessor-in- interest and, therefore, the petitioners cannot raise a contradictory plea in this Writ Petition and question the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. He also submitted that this Court held that no adverse possession can be claimed in respect of the endowment properties and, therefore, respondent No.1 had jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments supported the contention of respondent No.1. I have carefully perused the Judgment in O.S.No.358 of 1971. In para 11 on issue Nos.7,8 and 9, the trial Court held that the transaction of granting the suit lands on permanent lease dated 1-4-1908 is void and the possession of the defendants over the suit lands was illegal. Irrespective of the stand taken by the parties to the suit, the ﬁnding of the trial Court, which had become ﬁnal, is binding on both the parties. Therefore, the respondents cannot set up the plea of estoppel against the petitioners to contend that there was no lease. Indeed, their contention in this regard is in consonance with the Judgment of the civil Court. When once it is held that the lease is void, Section 82 of the Act does not come into play. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to Section 82(1) of the Act, which reads as under: “82. Lease of Agricultural Lands:- (1) Any lese of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled”. From the above reproduced provision it is clear that sine qua non for initiating proceedings for recovery of possession under the said provision is existence of lease, which automatically stood cancelled by virtue of the above mentioned statutory provision. Since there was no lease and the petitioners’ possession can no longer be claimed under the so called lease, exfacie Section 82 of the Act has no application and possession cannot be recovered by pressing into service the said provision and Rule 5(1) of the Rules, which provide for procedure to recover possession consequent on the statutory declaration under Section 82(1) that all leases stand cancelled. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by respondent No1 is without jurisdiction. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from initiating proceedings under Section 82 of the Act for recovery of possession, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners. It is, however, made clear that if the respondents treat the petitioners as encroachers, they are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Act without prejudice to the contention of the petitioners that such an action is also barred by limitation. ---------------------- -------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 18-9-2008 MNR