THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.682 of 2011 Date : 1-3-2011 Between: Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat, Represented by its Sarpanch and another .. Petitioners and The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur Town, Guntur District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.Ananda Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside auction notice dated 14-1-2011 of respondent No.4 whereby it has proposed to auction the fishery rights from 1-2-2011 to 31-1-2013 over tank admeasuring an extent of Ac.13-20 cents in D.No.251 of Ganapavaram village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District. I have heard Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel representing respondent No.4. Petitioner No.1 is the Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat and petitioner No.2 is the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. It is their pleaded case that an extent of Ac.16- 65 cents in D.No.251 was declared as Government poramboke and that in the said land, in an extent of Ac.13- 20, a tank called Uracheruvu is located. It is also their case that petitioner No.1-Gram Panchayat was formed in the year 1933 and that under the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, this tank is vested in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners placed reliance on Adangal issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 20-12-2001 and also a copy of resurvey and resettlement register of Ganapavaram village in support of their plea that the tank is vested in the Gram Panchayat. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Managing Trustee of respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.272/83 in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet for declaration of its title over the tank and that the said suit was dismissed for default by Judgment and decree dated 8-2-1990. The petitioners further pleaded that one V.Venkataswamy filed W.P.No.1746/2002 against petitioner No.1 stating that he is the highest bidder in the auction held by respondent No.4. This court dismissed the said Writ Petition against which W.A.No.875/2002 was filed wherein initially an interim order was granted permitting the Gram Panchayat to proceed with the fishing operations and deposit the sale proceeds in Government Treasury and the said order was modified by the Division Bench on 10-1- 2003 with the direction to the Gram Panchayat not to interfere with the rights of the auction purchaser in pursuance of lease dated 17-12-2001. It is further stated that the said Writ Appeal is pending. When the impugned auction notice was issued on 14-1-2011 whereby respondent No.4 proposed to auction the fishery rights, the present Writ Petition is filed. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Executive Officer of respondent No.4 wherein it is inter alia stated that respondent No.4-temple is the absolute owner of the tank, that it holds title deed No.472 issued by the Governor of Madras on 8-10-1960 through the Inam Commissioner. It is further stated that in the said deed, the Governor confirmed the title of the temple free from the liability of taxation and that the Inam fair register also confirmed the said aspect of title of the temple. It is also averred that the said tank was dug over the same land over which the temple holds title in an extent of Ac.13-25 cents and that the tank is situated in the vicinity of the temple and thereby it forms part and parcel of the temple. It is further stated that during Utsavams in the temple, theppotsavam was being conducted in the said tank. With reference to O.S.No.272/83, respondent No.4 stated that during the pendency of the said suit, the village elders pacified the parties and as petitioner No.1 has accepted the title and possession of the temple over the tank, the temple has not pursued the suit further resulting in its dismissal for default; that petitioner No.1-Gram Panchayat issued a certificate dated 14-8-1985 evincing publicity made by the temple for taking action for fishery rights and that accordingly public auction was conducted which was approved by the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad on 17-10-1985. Respondent No.4 further stated that for subsequent years, namely, 1986, 1988 and 2001, auctions were conducted and approved by the Commissioner, Endowments. A reference to the order passed in W.A.No.875/2002 has also been made in the counter affidavit and it is stated that in W.A.M.P.No.2394/2002 a Division Bench of this court gave a specific direction to the petitioners not to interfere with the rights of the auction purchaser under lease dated 17-12- 2001 executed by respondent No.4 in his favour. It is further stated that in view of the persistent disputes between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other, two villagers have filed a petition under Section 87(1) (c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short “the Act”) which was registered as O.A.No.33/2002 and the said O.A. was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur, vide his order dated 1-5-2004 declaring that the subject tank is a public religious endowments property within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act. The above noted facts would clearly reveal that there is a serious dispute between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other. Though the petitioners have been asserting that they have been exercising their rights over the tank, the pleadings of respondent No.4 contained in the counter affidavit would show that it is the temple which is exercising rights over the tank. The fact that a Division Bench of this court in W.A.M.P.No.2394/2002 in W.A.No.875/2002 directed the petitioners not to interfere with the rights of the lessee under lease deed dated 17-12- 2001 executed by respondent No.4 would clearly support the plea of respondent No.4 that the temple is exercising its rights over the tank. In the face of the seriously disputed questions of fact, it is not possible for this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate on the title over the tank. As of now, not only the order of the Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.2394/2002 but also the order of the Deputy Commissioner declaring that the tank is a religious endowment property are staring at the face of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the Executive Officer of petitioner No.1 was a party to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. In the teeth of this material, this Court cannot accept the plea of the petitioners that respondent No.4 cannot exercise its rights over the tank in question. If the petitioners seek to assert their right over the tank in question, they can only approach the appropriate forum for declaration of their title over the property in question, subject however to the right of respondent No.4 to resist such a claim based on the order of the Deputy Commissioner and other documents of title if any. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made hereinabove. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.839/2011 and W.V.M.P.No.345/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 1-3-2011 AM