IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 27448 of 2008 Between: Pagadala Kuppu Swamy Pardhasaradhy S/o. P. Kuppu Swamy Naidu R/o. Door No. 28/1300, Balaji Nagar, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Manager, Ponniamman Koil Street, Chittoor, Chittoor 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 to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing a notice dt. 3-12-2008 to the petitioner herein claiming title over the property in Sy.No. 396, Bearing Door No. 28-1300, Balaji Nagar, Near APSRTC Bus Depot, Chittoor without any manner of right as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and directing the respondents to desist from initiating further action of forcible eviction of the petitioner from the property in Sy.No. 396 bearing Door No. 28-1300 Balaji Colony, Near APSRTC Bus Depot, Chittoor without following the due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VL.N.G.KMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 27448 of 2008 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to declare the action of the third respondent in issuing notice dated 03-12-2008 to the petitioner herein claiming title over the property in Sy.No.396 bearing Door No.28-1300, Balaji Nagar, Near APSRTC Bus depot, Chittoor, without any manner of right as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to desist from initiating further action of forcible eviction of the petitioner from the property in question without following the procedure prescribed by law. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner and his fore-fathers are the owners of an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.396, that, in the year 1976, the petitioner had submitted a plan for construction of godown-cum-residential house, that permission was accorded by the Sarpanch, vide proceedings dated 07-01-1976, and that he had constructed a godown-cum-residential house. It is further stated that the Municipality had assigned door No.28-1300 to the said house, that the property was assessed to Municipal tax and that he has been paying municipality tax and electricity bills regularly. On being asked for proof of the petitioner’s title over the land in question, Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, the very fact that the petitioner had been permitted to construct the building by the Gram Panchayat, that the land in question had been allotted a door no., that the petitioner had been given an electricity connection, and that he had been paying property tax regularly, would itself show his title over the property in question. It is well settled that local authorities, be it the Gram Panchayat or the Municipality, are not empowered to confer title over the land in question. The mere fact that permission was accorded to the petitioner to construct a building does not necessitate a presumption that he is the owner of the land in question. Similar would be the situation in relation to payment of electricity charges and property tax. Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, even assuming that the petitioner was not the owner of the land in question, the very fact that he has been in possession thereof for several years would require the temple authorities to prove their title over the land in question. Learned counsel would further contend that, even if the petitioner is presumed to be an encroacher, the respondents can only act in accordance with Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, (for short ‘Act 30 of 1987’) and that they cannot forcibly seek eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. Despite being called upon to submit proof of title over the land, no documentary evidence of the petitioner’s title over the land in question has been placed before this Court. As noted above the contention urged is that, even assuming that the petitioner is not the owner of the land, the respondents are required to establish their title and to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987. Can the petitioner who has encroached on land which does not belong to him seek indulgence of this Court, and its protection, against his being evicted therefrom? It is well settled that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that this Court would not exercise its discretion as a matter of course. Would this Court be justified in showing indulgence to those who have, admittedly, violated the law? It is well to remember that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and a Writ is not issued as of right or as a matter of course. (C.R.Reddy Law College Employees’ Association, Eluru W.G.District vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi[1]). As the power exercised by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary it need not be exercised in every case where there is an error of law. One of the limitations imposed by this Court, on itself, is that it would not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. It would not allow itself to be turned into a court of appeal to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice. (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah[2]). Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, this Court will exercise its discretionary power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. This Court is required to keep larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, would it intervene in the matter. (Air India limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited[3]). Since the petitioner has not been able to prove his title over the land in question, and as the contentions advanced before this Court is based on the assumption that, even if he is not the owner, he is entitled for protection against eviction, I see no reason to exercise discretion in favour of a person who has defied the law by forcibly occupying land belonging to others. There is no whisper, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, of the petitioner having paid any rent to the temple, which claims to be the owner of the land in question. It seems as if the petitioner has taken possession, and is squatting over the temple lands, free of cost. I see no reason to show any indulgence to a person who, having contravened the law, now claims its protection. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:19-12-2008 usd [1] 2004(5) ALD 180 (DB) [2] AIR 1955 SC 425 [3] 2000(2)SCC 617