*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA + WRIT PETITION Nos. 12227 of 1997 & 176848 of 1999 WRIT PETITION No. 12227 of 1997 %Dated 24.02.2005 # Vedantam Srinivasa Chary, S/o.late V.Venkatachary, R/o.Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND $ 1 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nalgonda 2 The Single Trustee Cum Executive Officer, Machagiri, Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 176848 of 1999 # Vedantam Srinivasa Chary S/o Late Venkata Chary R/o Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND $ 1 Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Nalgonda District 3 The Sub-Collector Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4 The Commissioner Endowment Department Government of A.P. Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District 7 Macha giri Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple rep.by its Executive Officer and Single Trustee, Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.RAMA RAO (in both the writ petitions) Counsel for the 2nd respondent in WP 12227 OF 1997 and for the 7th respondent in WP 16848 OF 1999: MR.KONDAVEETI RAVI. Counsel for the 1ST respondent in WP 12227 OF 1997 and for the respondents 1 to 6 in WP 16848 OF 1999: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (in both the writ petitions) < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 966 2. 2000 (6) ALT 239 3. AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 1350 4. AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs : 12227 of 1997 & 16848 of 1999 WRIT PETITION NO: 12227 of 1997: Between: Vedantam Srinivasa Chary, S/o.late V.Venkatachary, R/o.Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nalgonda 2 The Single Trustee Cum Executive Officer, Machagiri, Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction, writ or order one in the Nature of Mandamus:- a) declaring the action of the respondents in treating the lands bearing Survey Nos.79, 459, 460, 461, 466, 590, 784, 785, 786, 804, 805, 806, 811, 812, 813 and 814 situated at Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District which are granted as an inam under Muntakhab dated.1357 Fasli to the petitioner's late father and later on, succeeded by the petitioner as temple lands of Sri Chenna Keshava Swamy Temple, Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District and putting them to public auction on 18/6/97 at 9-00 PM and also without cancellation of the occupancy rights certificate issued in respect of the above said lands through proceedings Dt.22/4/1993 bearing NO.F/2419/92 and recognized as a pattadar by issuing pattadar pass books under Record of Rights Act, Dt.16/1/95 belongs to Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple as arbitrary, illegal and auctioning the same through impugned notice Dt.28/5/1997 is illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Endowments Act b) granting all consequential benefits c) awarding costs, or any other orders appropriate in the case may be passed. WRIT PETITION NO : 16848 of 1999 Between: Vedantam Srinivasa Chary S/o Late Venkata Chary R/o Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Nalgonda District 3 The Sub-Collector Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4 The Commissioner Endowment Department Government of A.P. Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District 7 Macha giri Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple rep.by its Executive Officer and Single Trustee, Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction Writ or order one in the nature of Mandamus:- a) declaring the action of the authorities in issuing the occupancy Rights (Patta) Certuificate under sub-rule-3 of rule-6 through proceedings dated: Nil 1997 bearing No. R/999/98 in respect of the lands bearing Survey No. 459, 460 461, 590, 784, 785, 786, 804, 805, 806, 811, 812, 813, 814 and 416 to an extent of 58 acres, 35 guntas situated at Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, for which already the Occupancy Rights (Patta) Certificate has been issued to the petitioner through proceedings dated: 22/4/1993 bearing No.3F/2419/92, without cancelling the occupancy rights (Patta) Certificate already granted and without conducting any inquiry under section- 10 of the Act and without giving any prior notice to the peititoner before issuing of the Occupancy Rights (Patta) Certificate in favour of Sri Chenna Keshava Swamy Temple, Armoor Village,Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District as arbitary illegal and against to the principles of natural justice; b) declaring the action of the authorities in applying the conditions as stipulated under the amended Act-19 of 1994, for which the occupancy rights (Patta) Certificate has been issued to the petitioner under section 4 of the Act, for which such conditions are not applicable to the occupancy Rights (Patta) Certificate issued to the Claimants, who have applied under Section 4 of the act, is arbitrary and illegal, c) also declare that the amended conditions do not apply to the petitioners claiming the Occupancy Rights (Patta) Certificate; d) further declare that the occupancy Rights (Patta) Certificate issued to Sri Chenna Keshava Swamy Temple Armoor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District through proceedings No. F/999/98 dated Nil 97 may be cancelled; granting all consequential benefits; e) awarding costs; or any other order or orders appropriate in the case may be passed. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.RAMA RAO (in both the writ petitions) Counsel for the 2nd respondent in WP 12227 OF 1997 and 7th respondent in WP 16848 OF 1999: MR.KONDAVEETI RAVI. Counsel for the 1ST respondent in WP 12227 OF 1997 and for the respondents 1 to 6 in WP 16848 OF 1999: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos.12227 of 1997 & 16848 of 1999 COMMON ORDER: The principal controversy revolves around the Occupancy Rights (Patta) Certificate (for brevity ‘Certificate’) granted by the competent authority viz., 3rd respondent-Sub Collector, Bhongir, Nalgonda District in W.P.No.16848 of 1999 under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1955’) to the petitioner viz., Vedantam Srinivasa Chary and Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple (for brevity ‘temple’), Aroor village, in relation to the lands, the subject matter of these writ petitions, which were granted to the respective parties without affording any opportunity to the other party. Though virtually these are rival claims for issuance of Certificates under the Act of 1955, relating to the self same property, the quasi judicial authority-cum-Sub Collector, Bhongir, decided these matters and issued Certificates in favour of both the petitioners in proceedings No.F/2419/92, dated 22-04-1993 and also the temple in proceedings No.P999/98, dated nil without hearing the other party. 2. Writ Petition No.12227 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the lands bearing Survey Nos.79, 459, 460, 461, 466, 590, 784, 785, 786, 804, 805, 806, 811, 812, 813 and 814 situate at Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, which are granted as an inam under Muntakhab bearing file No.10/25 of 1357 Fasli to the petitioner’s late father and later on, succeeded by the petitioner, as temple lands of Sri Chenna Keshava Swamy Temple, Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District and putting them to public auction on 18-06-1997 at 9-00 AM and also without cancellation of the Certificate issued in respect of the above said lands through proceedings dated 22-04-1993 bearing No.F/2419/92 and recognized as a pattadar by issuing pattadar passbooks under Record of Rights Act, dated 16-01- 1995 belongs to Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, as arbitrary, illegal and auctioning the same through impugned notice dated 28-05-1997 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Endowments Act and for other consequential benefits. 3. Likewise, Writ Petition No.16848 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner, praying to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the authorities in issuing the Certificate under sub-rule (3) of rule-6 of Andhara Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (for brevity ‘Rules, 1975) through proceedings dated:Nil 1997 bearing NO.P/999/98 in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos.459, 460, 461, 590, 784, 785, 786, 804, 805, 806, 811, 812, 813, 814 and 416 to an extent of 58 acres, 35 guntas situate at Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, for which already the Certificate had been issued to the petitioner through proceedings dated 22-04-1993 bearing No.F/2419/92, without canceling the Certificate already granted and without conducting any inquiry under section-10 of the Act of 1955 and without giving any prior notice to the petitioner before issuing of the Certificate in favour of the Temple, Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, as arbitrary, illegal and to declare the action of the authorities in applying the conditions as stipulated under the amended Act-19 of 1994 of the Act of 1955, for which the Certificate has been issued to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act of 1955, for which such conditions are not applicable to the Certificate issued to the claimants, who have applied under section-4 of the Act of 1955 is arbitrary and illegal and also to declare that the amended conditions do not apply to the petitioner claiming the Certificate and further to declare that the Certificate issued to the Temple, Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District through proceedings NO.P/999/98 dated:Nil ‘1997 may be cancelled while granting all consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner, in one, had questioned the proposed auction and in another, had questioned issue of Certificate in favour of temple under the Act of 1955 and in view of the fact that substantially common questions of fact and questions of law are involved, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 5. This Court made interim orders in the aforesaid writ petitions. The Commissioner of Endowments filed counter affidavit in detail in W.P.No.16848 of 1999 and the temple filed W.V.M.P.No.3410 of 1999 in W.P.M.P.No.20911 of 1999 in W.P.No.16848 of 1999 to vacate the interim order dated 11-08-1999 in W.P.No.16848 of 1999, where the stand taken by the temple was specified. 6. Sri M. Ramarao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner in both the writ petitions made the following submissions: The learned counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and would contend that the proposed auction though the Certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner is intact as on today, is illegal and one without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also maintained that the issuance of Certificate in favour of the temple, when already a Certificate had been issued by the competitive authority in favour the petitioner, also is bad in law. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the provisions of the Act of 1955 and also the Rules of 1975 made there under and also Section 76 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘Act of 1987). The learned counsel, while elaborating the submissions, had pointed out to the forms of issuance of Certificate, which cannot be issued in favour of temple under the Act of 1955, and the amending provisions, which had been introduced in the said Act of 1955 and the impact thereof. The learned counsel specifically pointed out that the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act of 1955 and hence, the same is not governed by the amended provisions. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the Sethwar and also the notice issued in Form No.II by the Sub- Collector, Bhongir and the further stand taken in the reply affidavit. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.No.30640 of 1997, dated 01-08-2001. Further reliance was placed on P.V.M.R.D.IYENGAR v. GOVT. OF A.P. and MOHD. RIAZUDDIN v. GOVT. OF A.P. It was submitted that the Sethwar, which had been relied on and all other relevant documents, also had been taken into consideration by the competent authority-Sub Collector, Bhongir, while issuing Certificate in favour of writ petitioner. 7 . Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments made elaborate submissions relating to the stand taken by the Endowment Department in this regard and had traced out certain historical aspects which had led to the legislation of the Act of 1987 and also the abolition of the hereditary rights of archakas. The learned Government Pleader further explained the ratio laid down in the decision (supra one cited) and the non-applicability thereof to the present case and also made an attempt to convince the Court that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30640 of 1997, dated 01-08-2001, cannot be said to be the correct view in view of the fact that the very amendment was made to Section 4 by the Amending Act 19 of 1994 in the Act of 1955 itself. However, in the alternative, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioner without any notice to the temple in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is nonest in the eye of law. 8. Sri Kondaveeti Ravi, the learned counsel representing the temple, while making elaborate submissions, placed strong reliance on BHEEMSENA RAO v.YELLA REDDI and also had taken this Court through the contents of the Certificate issued in favour of the temple and would contend that after conducting of proper enquiry, competent authority had issued Certificate in favour of the temple. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the petitioner has no legal right at all to make any plea whatsoever relating to issuance of Certificate under the Act of 1955 in the light of the provisions under Section 4 of the Act of 1955, as amended in view of the fact that Amendments had been introduced in Section 4 of the Act of 1955. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that merely because some provision had been specified in the Certificate, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the situation and cannot sustain the Certificate, on the strength of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the vacate stay petition, wherein, the stand taken by the temple was made very clear. The learned Counsel had pointed out that even otherwise, the competent authority, a quasi judicial authority had made an order granting Certificate in favour of the temple after due enquiry and on such order an appeal under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is available and hence, without exhausting the appellate remedy, the petitioner cannot straight away approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Heard the counsel. 10. In W.P.No.12227 of 1997, second respondent is the temple and the proposed auction dated 18-06-1997 at 9 AM without canceling the certificate issued in respect of the lands mentioned in the writ petition had been questioned. In W.P.No.16848 of 1999, seventh respondent is the temple, 3rd respondent is the Sub-Collector of Bhongir, the competent authority and in the said writ petition the certificate issued vide proceedings bearing No.P/999/98 dated Nil and issuance thereof in favour of the temple without canceling the Certificate already issued in favour of the petitioner without conducting enquiry had been questioned. 11. The specific case of the petitioner is that his forefather namely Sri Jogaiah Chary was given agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.70-03 gts., bearing Survey Nos.459, 460, 461, 590, 784, 785, 786, 804, 805, 806, 811, 812, 813, 814 and 416 at Aroor Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District and after his death the father of the petitioner Vedantam Venkata Chary succeeded to the inam lands and the said inam lands were given through Muntakhab bearing file No.10/25 of 1357 Fasli on 06-09-1956 Fasli. After the death of his father, a succession had been granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1959 and since then the petitioner has been in occupation of the above said lands as inamdar. After abolition of the inams, the petitioner had applied for grant of Certificate for the said inam lands and the Sub- Collector, Bhongir-competent authority, after thorough enquiry, under Section 10 of the Act of 1955 and under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 had issued proceedings dated 22-04-1993 bearing No.F/2419/92 in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos.459, 460, 461, 590, 784, 785, 786, 804, 805, 806, 811, 812, 813, 814 and 416 to an extent of Ac.58-35 gts. situate at Aroor village, Veligonda Mandal after the amended Act 29 of 1985 of the Act of 1955. It may be appropriate to have a look at the said certificate dated 22-04-1993, which is hereunder: Office of the Sub-Collector:: Bhongir. No.F/2419/92 Dt.22-04-1993 Form – III (See Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6) In accordance with the provisions of section-10 read with section-4(2) of the Andhra Praesh (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act 1954, Sri Vedantham Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Venkata Chary, resident at Aroor (v) of Valigonda mandal shall be registered as an occupant in respect of the land specified to the schedule below and shall be liable to pay to Government an amount of Rs.4007-50 towards premium in (10) instalments commencing from 01-4- 1992, he shall also liable to pay the land Revenue Assessment in respect of the said land in accordance with the provisions of the Act in Section. THE SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Village Sy.No. Extent Wet or Dry Remarks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 4 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aroor 459 1-08 wet Dastagarda Lands 460 0-08 ,, 461 0-32 ,, 590 8-36 Dry 784 0-16 ,, 785 2-14 ,, 786 0-38 Wet 804 4-11 Dry 805 1-19 ,, 806 0-37 Wet 811 11-29 Dry 812 1-38 Wet 813 1-16 ,, 814 21-19 Dry 416/ 0-34 Wet ------------- 58-35 ------------- sd/-- SUB-COLLECTOR, BHONGIR.” 1 2 . The petitioner paid the entire premium amount fixed by the said authorities amounting to Rs.4,007-50 ps. and the said certificate became final and the petitioner became the owner of the said lands under the Act of 1955. The Inspector of Endowments Department, Bhongir, through his notice dated 20-12-1995 bearing No.IN/95 had directed the petitioner to handover the aforesaid lands alleging that the lands are temple lands and they are under the Endowment Department and the petitioner filed a representation on 04-01-1996 stating that the aforesaid lands are not temple lands and patta already had been granted in favour of the petitioner under the Act of 1955. Further, the Mandal Revenue Officer also had issued patta passbook. Thus the Record of Rights also had been recognized. Thus even as per the revenue records, the petitioner became absolute owner of the aforesaid lands. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department issued notice dated 03-01-1996 bearing letter No.B/50/96 to the effect that the petitioner was making attempt to alienate portion of the land and hence, petitioner was called for hearing and the date of hearing was fixed through proceedings dated 18-03-1996 directing him to appear on 01-04-1996 and the petitioner appeared for enquiry and no enquiry had been taken place on the aforesaid day. Surprisingly, a notice dated 28-05-1997 was issued by the Executive Officer-Single Trustee of the temple putting the said lands for public auction treating them as temple lands and the said notice was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.12227 of 1997 wherein interim suspension was granted. 13. While the matters stood thus, the competent authority without giving any notice and without canceling the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner had issued yet another Certificate for the selfsame lands by proceedings bearing No.P/999/98 dated Nil’1997 under the Act of 1955 in the name of the temple and on coming to know about the same, the petitioner had obtained the copy of the said certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer in the last week of July 1999. 14. Specific stand was taken that the petitioner applid for Certificate under Section 4 of the Act of 1955 and after due enquiry the competent authority had issued the said Certificate and hence, in the said circumstances, the department putting the lands to auction cannot be sustained and equally the Certificate issued in favour of the temple also cannot be sustained. It may be appropriate to have a look at the certificate issued under Form III by the competent authority in favour of the temple, which reads as hereunder: “Sub-Collector Office Bhongir. No.P/999/98 Dt.--1997 Form – III (See Sub-rule 8 of Rule 6) In accordance with the provisions of section-10 read with section-- of the Andhra Praesh (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act 1954. Sri Chenna Keshawa S.T., resident at Aroor (v) of Valigonda mandal shall be registered as an occupant in respect of the land specified to the schedule below and shall be liable to pay to Government an amount of Rs.-- towards premium in lumsum. He/she shall also liable to pay the land revenue assessment in respect of the said land in accordance with the provisions of the Act in Section. THE SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Village Sy.No. Extent Wet or Dry Remarks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 4 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aroor 79 12-07 Dry 459 1-08 wet 460 0-08 Dry 461 1-32 Wet 590 0-39 Wet 784 8-36 Dry 785 0-16 Dry 786 2-04 Wet 804 0-38 Dry 805 4-11 ,, 806 1-09 Wet 811 0-37 Dry 812 11-29 Wet 813 1-38 Wet 814 1-06 Wet 416/ 21-19 Dry ------------- 71-17 ------------- Sd/-- SUB-COLLECTOR, BHONGIR.” 15. In the counter affidavit filed in detail by R-4- the Commissioner of Endowments in W.P.No.16848 of 1999, specific stand was taken that these agricultural lands were given to Jogaiah Chary for the purpose of rendering service in the temple and the occupancy rights under the provisions of the Act of 1955 are not applicable to the lands belonging to the temple. The relevant provisions of the Act of 1955 also had been specified and further stand was taken that any Certificate issued in favour of any person other than the religious institution is null and void as per amended Act, 1994 and the petitioner was issued certificate in 1993 without notice and knowledge to the temple authorities. Several other details relating to the nature of these lands and the records pertaining thereto also had been narrated in detail. 16. Specific stand was taken that a close scrutiny of the entries in the book of endowments would reveal that these lands are covered by the Survey Numbers, which had been andowed to the temple but they are in possession of the Pujaries/Archakas for the purpose of rendering Archakatwam service and the lands in favour of these institutions are burdened with the said service and the petitioner cannot make such a claim at all. 17. Further stand had been taken that the authorities under the Act of 1955 had committed a mistake in entertaining the application of the petitioner for issuance of the Certificate and objections could not be raised inasmuch as without the knowledge of the temple authorities the same had been done by the competent authority. Further stand had been taken that the possession of the subject lands had been given to the petitioner’s father for rendering service to the deity. The hereditary rights of Archakas