IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 38 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/12/2007 in WP NO: 27006 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (GAD), rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District 3. The Revenue Divisional officer,Narasaraopet Guntur District ... APPELLANTS AND 1. The Bhuvana Chandra Town Hall Society, Regd.No. 222/2002 Bhuvana Chandra Town Hall, Prakash nagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District rep.by its Secretary, K.V.Rama Rao 2. K.V.K.Rama Rao S/o.Peraiah R/o.202, Sainath Towers Rami Reddy PEta, Narasaraopet Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI The Court made the following: J U D G M E N T: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 31.12.2007 passed in WPMP Nos.35315 and 36057 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.27006 of 2007, this appeal has been filed by the State – original respondents. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described as they were arrayed in the petition. Petitioners – present respondents claim to be incharge of the management of Bhuvana Chandra Town Hall, which was constructed on land bearing T.S.No.1740 of Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet Town. The said land, admeasuring Ac.1-14 cts., originally belonged to the State of Andhra Pradesh, but by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.327, Revenue (AGN) Department, dated 11.5.1998, the same had been transferred in favour of the Chairman, District Cultural Council, Guntur for construction of a Town Hall and it is the case of the petitioners that the said Council had given possession of the land to petitioner No.1 society, which had been formed to construct a Town Hall on the said land and to manage the same after its construction. 3. Thus, according to the case of the petitioners, the Town Hall belongs to the petitioners and they were managing its affairs. It may incidentally be noted here that it is not in dispute that some government officials, by virtue of their office, are members of the Managing Committee of petitioner No.1 society. 4. It was the case of petitioner No.1 society that the Town Hall was being managed by the society since long, but, all of a sudden, by an order dated 03.12.2007, a copy of which was not given to the society at the relevant time, management of the Town Hall was taken away by respondent No.3 and the petitioners were restrained from managing the affairs of the Town Hall. 5. In the afore-stated circumstances, the impugned order has been challenged in Writ Petition No.27006 of 2007. In the said petition, it has been submitted that the action of taking the management of the Town Hall from the petitioners is illegal because no notice of whatsoever type had been issued to the society or to any of its office bearers before the impugned action was taken. Moreover, it has been stated in the petition that there was no complaint of whatsoever type with regard to mismanagement of any type made by anyone to any authority and, therefore, there was no reason for the respondent authorities to take the management of the Town Hall without any rhyme or reason. 6. An application praying for interim relief was filed in the said petition. In the said application, being WPMP No.36057 of 2007, it was prayed that the proceedings initiated by respondent District Collector in pursuance of order dated 3.12.2007 be suspended during the pendency of the petition. 7. After hearing the concerned advocates and upon going through the facts of the case, on 31.12.2007, the learned Single Judge has granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners whereby operation of the impugned order dated 03.12.2007 has been suspended and the respondents have been directed to unlock the office of the society and handover custody of the seized record to petitioner No.2 so as to manage the affairs of the Town Hall. 8. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent – government authorities have filed this appeal. 9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents – present appellants has submitted that the impugned order is unjust, illegal and bad in law. It has been submitted that the land in question originally belonged to the government and, therefore, the petitioner society cannot claim any right over it. It has been submitted that simply because a society was formed and some of the non-officials are office-bearers of the society, the society would not get any right to manage the Town Hall, which is otherwise a property belonging to the State. It has been submitted by him that the construction of Town Hall was executed by the Superintending Engineer of Public Health Department and, therefore, also the petitioner society is not right when it states that it has a right to manage the Town Hall. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Shri D. Prakash Reddy appearing for the original petitioners, while supporting the impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge, has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is absolutely unjust and illegal for the reason that it is violative of the principles of natural justice. No notice of whatsoever type had been given to the petitioners before the impugned action was taken. In view of the said fact, according to him, the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in passing the impugned order whereby the management of the Town Hall has been once again handed over to the petitioners. 11. It has been further submitted by him that the petitioners had spent substantial amount for constructing the Town Hall in view of the fact that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.327 dated 11.5.1998, the land in question had been given to petitioner No.1 society and as the society had constructed the Town Hall from its own funds as well as from the amount collected by it by way of donations, the respondent authorities had no right of whatsoever type to snatch away management of the Town Hall from the petitioners. 12. It has been further submitted by him that no counter was filed by the respondents before the learned Single Judge as the respondents were aware of the fact that they had no case and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order, which is otherwise just, legal and proper. 13. We have heard the learned advocates and have perused the relevant record. It is not in dispute that no counter was filed by the respondents. 14. Upon hearing the learned advocates and upon perusal of the record it is clear that the management of the Town Hall of the petitioners, particularly by the impugned order dated 03.12.2007, was taken away by the government authorities. In doing so, the only explanation offered by the learned Advocate General representing the appellants is that the government never handed over the management of the Town Hall to the petitioner society and that the society had not placed any material to show under what authority they were conducting the business and managing the Town Hall. 15. Upon perusal of the record it appears that no evidence was adduced before the learned Single Judge with regard to incurring costs for construction of the Town Hall either by the original petitioners or by the government authorities. Of course, some documents were shown to this Court whereby the learned advocate appearing for the respondents have tried to show that the amount for constructing the Town Hall was spent by the respondents. As the said facts were not placed before the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, we cannot look into the same at this stage. 16. It could not be disputed even by the original petitioners that the land on which the Town Hall has been constructed belonged to the government authorities and the said land was transferred to the Chairman, District Cultural Council, Guntur for construction of a Town Hall. Thus, the original petitioners were never given the land in question and there was no evidence before the learned Single Judge to show that the Town Hall was constructed by the original petitioners. Therefore, the original petitioners had failed to establish before the learned Single Judge that they had a right to manage the Town Hall. Of course, it appears that for some reason, the original petitioners were occupying the office of the Town Hall and, therefore, they must be having the record in the office of the Town Hall. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires modification. The petitioners shall be permitted to enter into the office of the society and they can have the custody of the record, which was seized by the authorities. However, pending disposal of the writ petition, the Bhuvana Chandra Town Hall Society shall not manage the affairs of the Town Hall. 18. Needless to say that it would be open to the original petitioners to adduce necessary evidence by filing further affidavit or otherwise so as to adduce evidence to the effect that the Town Hall was constructed with their own funds and they have a right to manage the Town Hall. At the same time, even the respondent – government authorities can also file their counter along with evidence to show that the Town Hall was constructed with the funds given by the government and the government authorities have a right to manage the same. The material which might be placed before the learned Single Judge would be considered by the Court at the time of final hearing of the petition. 19. In view of the above directions, the appeal is partly allowed to the above extent only, with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ May , 2008 GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRK}