*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION Nos.3849 and 3128 of 2011 % Dated: 28-04-2011 W.P.No.3849 of 2011 # Weaker Sections Mutt Land Residents Association Thummalakunta Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District & others. … Petitioners VERSUS $ Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati & others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy Senior counsel representing Sri P. Nagendra Reddy ^ Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S. Ramachandra Rao Senior counsel for Sri K.R. Prabhakar Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Smt. Ch. Vedavani Counsel for respondent No.5: GP for Revenue <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. (1996) 5 SCC 54 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 TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION Nos.3849 and 3128 of 2011 W.P.No.3849 of 2011 Between: Weaker Sections Mutt Land Residents Association, Thummalakunta Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District & others. … Petitioners And Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, Senior counsel for Sri P. Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S. Ramachandra Rao Senior counsel for Sri K.R. Prabhakar Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Smt. Ch. Vedavani Counsel for respondent No.5: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3849 and 3128 of 2011 Prelude: Before proceeding with the adjudication of the cases on merits, it is necessary to note that the scope of these Writ Petitions is limited to the legality and validity of disconnection of electricity supply and its non-restoration. While exercising writ jurisdiction, it is neither the function nor the forte of this Court to pronounce on the title over properties. But, in order to decide on the petitioners’ pleas pertaining to their right to restoration of electricity supply, it is absolutely necessary in the opinion of this Court to dwell on the prima facie title and the nature of the possession of the petitioners. The observations made and the findings rendered hereinafter are therefore limited to the dispute raised and relief claimed in these Writ Petitions. W.P.No.3849 of 2011: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 in demolishing the compound walls of the members of petitioner No.1 association, disconnecting the power supply, breaking the poles and pulling the electrical wires in Sy.Nos.13, 15 and 17 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in refusing to restore the power supply, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights. Pleadings: Petitioner No.1 is a registered association comprising members claiming to be the tenants of the lands belonging to respondent No.1 Mutt (hereinafter referred to as “the Mutt”). Petitioner Nos.2 to 11 are some of its members. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are briefly summarized hereunder: Petitioner No.1 is formed to protect its members, who are the residents of houses in Sy.Nos.13, 15 and 17 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor District, it has 400 members on its rolls, they have constructed about 100 houses and obtained electricity and telephone connections and they are being paid electricity charges regularly. Their names are registered in the voters’ list. The Mutt filed civil suits such as O.S.Nos.114/71, 115/71 and 116/71 against the vendors of the members of petitioner No.1 association and the said suits were dismissed. The judgments in the suits were confirmed in appeals. The members of the association have purchased the plots during the years 1998 and 1999 and have constructed dwelling houses investing their life savings. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 provided electricity connections and the members are regularly paying the electricity bills. That originally the land was uncultivable. In the early part of the 19th century, the Mahant of the Mutt granted a Saswatha Patta in favour of the ancestors of the vendors of the members of petitioner No.1 association in Sy.Nos.13, 15 and 17. The vendors have developed the land, prepared a layout in the year 1998 and sold the plots to the members, who are poor having migrated from the neighbouring villages and towns of Tirupati. At the time of sale, judgment dated 29.01.1977 in O.S.No.115 of 1971 was verified. The said judgment and other similar judgments have become final. Therefore, the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the plots, which are in their possession and enjoyment, without interference from anybody. When a part of the land in Sy.No.15 was acquired, there were rival claims for compensation, which were referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said reference was answered in favour of the private parties and against the Mutt. The Mutt executed an agreement of sale agreeing to sell an extent of Ac.53.27 cents to a company by name, M/s. Billiyard Farms Private Limited, Tirupati. Though the Mutt has lost its title, the petitioners, being middle class people, wanted to buy peace and have approached the Mutt for sale of the land in their occupation as in case of M/s. Billiyard Farms Private Limited. When respondent No.5 was planning to evict the petitioners without following due process of law, they filed Writ Petition No.24702 of 2010, which was admitted and an order of status quo was granted by this Court. Some others filed Writ Petition No.522 of 2011, which was also admitted and an interim direction not to demolish the houses was granted. Yet another Writ Petition, namely; Writ Petition No.25236 of 2010 was filed by some others, which was disposed of by this Court by recording the statement made on behalf of the revenue department that at present there was no proposal for evicting the petitioners and that in future if they decide to evict, the revenue department will follow due process of law. That on 05.02.2011, respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and their subordinate staff came to the land along with police personnel under the personal supervision of respondent No.5 and damaged about 250 electrical poles and wires and demolished the compound walls of the houses of some of the members of petitioner No.1 association by using poclainers. They have also started digging the land on the internal roads and in between the houses with a view to prevent the residents from using the same. They have proclaimed that they will erect the fencing around the colony and prevent the petitioners from coming outside towards the road. About 100 houses are not having electricity supply and the entire area has become dark. When the petitioners approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 for restoration of power supply, they were informed that respondent No.6 directed them not to restore the power supply. Though the property was damaged, respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to give any criminal complaint against respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and their subordinates. On the above premises, the petitioners sought for the above-noted relief. At the stage of admission, this Court called upon the respondents to file their counter affidavits. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5 and 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mahant of the Mutt, he has inter alia stated that the petitioners are the mere encroachers of the land of the Mutt and the majority of the members of petitioner No.1 association do not belong to the weaker sections and they belong to forward castes. The ongoing encroachments are being made in Sy.No.13 of Avilala Village and they have nothing to do with the land in Sy.Nos.15 and 17. From the list of 400 members filed by petitioner No.1 association, it is found that the President of petitioner No.1 association and his other family members are shown as independent members. His father is shown at Sl.No.148, his mother is shown at Sl.No.63 and his brother is shown at Sl.No.290 and the President of petitioner No.1 association himself is petitioner No.2. Similarly, petitioner No.4, who is the Executive Member of the association, is shown at Sl.No.15, his wife is shown at Sl.No.9, his son is shown at Sl.No.11, his brother is shown at Sl.No.17 and his brother’s wife is shown at Sl.No.332. The entire list consists of members of several families. The petitioners have been litigating by filing various Writ Petitions for different reliefs. They are Writ Petition Nos.2906 of 2011, 24702 of 2010 and 28452 of 2010. The petitioners do not have any right over the property in question and some of them are recent encroachers and the rest of them are prospective encroachers. That the Mutt approached A.P. Lokayuktha, who has taken up the case as complaint No.1228/2008/B1. In pursuance of an interim order granted by the Lokayuktha, a meeting was held on 03.02.2011 in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, along with the Tahsildar, M.P.D.O., Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Panchayat Secretary and the officials of the Mutt, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the officials to conduct a joint inspection to identify the structures covered by the Court cases and non- dwelling sheds. Accordingly, the Joint Inspection was held on 04.02.2011. Thereafter, another meeting was held in the evening of 04.02.2011. The Revenue Divisional Officer in consultation with the Joint Collector, Chittoor District, ordered to remove the sheds, which are not covered by any Court cases with police protection. Accordingly, a joint operation was conducted on 05.02.2011 during which non-dwelling sheds, which are not covered by the Court cases, were removed and a report was submitted to the District Collector by the officials on 05.02.2011. That out of the petitioners and other members shown in the list, only 30 persons are having sheds and the remaining members have neither raised the sheds nor been in possession of the land. The 30 sheds, which are covered by the interim order of this Court, are not affected in the demolition and the petitioners and some of the persons shown in the list, who do not have sheds, are trying to raise new sheds after obtaining interim orders. The members of petitioner No.1 association are not residing in the houses. That the Mutt is the rightful owner of the landed property admeasuring Ac.174.75 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.13, 15, 17/2, 17/3 and 17/5 of Avilala Village. The said lands are in one contiguous plot. These lands were granted as inam in favour of Bugga Mutt, Tirupati and Gundluri Venkamma equally for the up keep of Kasam Kaluva of Avilala Village under title deed bearing No.2937 and that the Gundluri family leased out its half share permanently under registered document dated 23.12.1856 in favour of the Bugga Mutt without reserving the right to recover or re-enter the lands. The then Mahanth of Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati, Sri Bhagavandossjee purchased full rights of half share of Sri Bugga Mutt from its Mahanth under registered sale deed dated 17.12.1884 under document No.985 of 1884 and on the same day the Bugga Mutt transferred its permanent leasehold rights in the remaining half share of the lands in favour of the Mutt under document No.986, dated 17.12.1884. Thus, the Mutt came into lawful possession of the entire extent of the land admeasuring Ac.174.75 cents in the abovementioned survey numbers. That after acquiring title over the land, the Mutt leased out the same to the ryots in the nearby villages of Tirupati. Out of the said leased lands, an extent of Ac.7.25 cents in Sy.No.13 of Avilala Village was leased out to one Kalimela Peddabba, Esnakula Siddaiah and Esnakula Bhupaiah. When they have failed to pay the rents, the Mutt filed O.S.No.115 of 1971 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupati for recovery of possession and payment of damages. The said suit was partly decreed directing the defendants to pay the rents to the Mutt while denying the relief of recovery of possession on the ground of limitation. When the tenants of the Mutt made attempts to convert the land to commercial use, the Mutt filed O.S.No.244 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the tenants from converting the land leased out to them from agriculture to commercial purpose. After full fledged trial, the suit was decreed and the tenants were restrained by way of permanent injunction from converting the land into house sites or for any purpose other than agriculture. Sri Kalimela Peddabba, Esnakula Siddaiah and Esnakula Bhupaiah were arrayed as defendant Nos.22, 23 and 24 respectively in the said suit. The judgment and decree in the said suit has become final, as no appeal was filed by the aggrieved parties. As the original tenants themselves had no title, the petitioners, who claimed to be the transferees from them, do not get any title. The petitioners are recent encroachers of the land, as revealed from the joint inspection report and photographs taken at the time of inspection. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.18763 of 2007 have set up the petitioners in this Writ Petition and out of 124 persons, whose names are shown in the list, only 30 persons have recently raised sheds with asbestos sheets and out of these 30 structures, 4 are under construction. That under Section 82 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, whose vires are upheld by the Apex Court in the year 2001, all the existing agricultural leases of land belonging to charitable institutions and endowments stand cancelled and the institutions are granted liberty to recover possession, after issuing notice in Form No.1 through the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department having jurisdiction. By invoking the said provision, the Mutt issued notice in Form No.1 to Sri Kalimela Peddabba, Esnakula Siddaiah and Esnakula Bhupaiah. Assailing the said notices, they have filed Writ Petition No.18763 of 2007, wherein this Court in WPMP.No.902 of 2009 directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their lands over an extent of Ac.7.25 cents in Sy.No.13 of Avilala Village with the further direction that the petitioners therein shall not alter the nature of the land or create any third party encumbrances. The learned Judge, however, made it clear that the said order shall not preclude the petitioners from conducting agricultural operations. The said Writ Petition is pending. In Writ Petition Nos.24702 and 27877 of 2010, order of status quo was granted by this Court and the alleged purchase of the plots by the petitioners is in disobedience of the said order of status quo. Ex.P13 document under which plot No.18 was purportedly sold for Rs.16,500/- in favour of B. Rajaiah on 08.02.1998 was a created one and the same cannot be looked into for any purpose, as it is hit by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Similarly, another sale deed filed by the petitioners is also created to defraud the Mutt. If Kalimela Chinna Gunamma has executed the sale deeds in the year 1998, she would not have filed Writ Petition No.18763 of 2007 claiming right over the same property. The award passed under Section 30 of the Act is the subject matter of an appeal pending before this Court. The petitioners, who have not approached this Court with clean hands, are not entitled to the discretionary relief of this Court. That the petitioners have been coming out with different versions in different Writ Petitions i.e., Writ Petition Nos.24702 of 2010, 27877 of 2010 and 28452 of 2010. In those Writ Petitions, they have described themselves as vegetable vendors and daily labour, whereas in the present Writ Petition they claimed to be middle class people. The addresses given in the cause title of the previous Writ Petitions and that given in the present Writ Petition are at variance. The electricity bills filed by the petitioners do not pertain to the sheds situated in Sy.No.13 and as per the addresses shown in those bills, the houses are situated in Gandhipuram, which is in Sy.Nos.14 and 16, and not in Sy.No.13 of Avilala village. The petitioners, who are the encroachers, are not entitled to any relief. The Additional Assistant Engineer (Operation), APSPDCL, Rajeev Nagar, Tirupati, respondent No.3, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and respondent No.2. In his counter affidavit, he has stated that whenever a person makes an application for release of power supply to the premises, the department is giving service connection on (i) production of land/building ownership documents and (ii) municipal tax receipts or lease agreement entered into with the registered owner. In the absence of these documents or if a dispute exists, the department, without going into the civil disputes, is releasing power supply on taking indemnity bond from the applicant to the effect that in case any dispute arises subsequently, the power supply would be disconnected without any notice. That about 1500 power connections were released in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.13, 15 and 17 of Avilala Village and in respect of the land concerned in the present case, 60 connections were released from June 2010 to 13.01.2011. The details of service connection numbers and the names of the registered consumers are mentioned in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Only petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 7 and 11 were given service connections and no service connections were released to the other petitioners. The Joint Collector, Chittoor District, addressed letter dated 30.01.2011 to respondent No.2 directing it to strictly comply with the prevailing regulations before giving electricity connections and also requested it to remove all the electricity connections given without following the regulations. On receipt of the said letter, a joint meeting convened by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, was held on 03.02.2011 at the MPDO’s office and in that meeting respondent No.3 was informed that power supply should be disconnected on his receiving intimation of demolition of the houses. On 05.02.2011, the Tahsildar, Tirupati rural has directed respondent No.3 to stop power supply and accordingly the said direction was implemented. The revenue authorities and the panchayat secretary have demolished the existing poles and the electricity department has only disconnected the power supply at the transformer without demolishing the existing poles or the houses. The poles and the electricity wires were damaged and without replacing them, it is not possible to restore the power supply. The Joint Collector has addressed letter on 05.03.2011 enclosing a copy of order dated 18.02.2011 of the Lokayuktha directing the electricity department not to release illegal power connections and send compliance report by 19.04.2011. A reply affidavit has been filed by petitioner No.2, wherein he has questioned the power and authority of the Revenue and Panchayat Raj departments to conduct joint inspection. He has denied the allegation that the occupants of the land are involved in real estate business and reiterated that they are the middle class persons, who purchased the plots and constructed the houses with their hard earned money and life savings. That the members of petitioner No.1 association are having authorized connections and paying electricity charges regularly after inspecting their houses in pursuance of the applications made by them and therefore respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to continue the power supply till adjudication of the disputes between the petitioners and the Mutt by the appropriate Court. He has denied the allegation that the land grabbers and encroachers are adopting the modus operandi of erecting temporary sheds and allowing third parties to stay in those houses. They questioned the power and authority of the respondents in dismantling the electrical poles and disconnecting the power supply. Submissions: At the hearing, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior counsel, submitted that petitioner Nos.2 to 11 and other members of petitioner No.1 association are bona fide purchasers of the plots for valuable consideration and therefore the respondents are not entitled to disconnect the power supply and dismantle the electrical poles with a view to force them to vacate the houses in their occupation. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the respondents cannot take law into their hands by indulging in vandalism and behaving in a highhanded manner. He further submitted that even assuming that the petitioners are not in lawful occupation of the property, the Mutt is entitled to evict them by following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the 1987 Act”) and that as the electricity connections were released on the applications of the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot disconnect the same without prior notice and terminate the existing agreements. Opposing the above contentions, Sri S. Ramchandra Rao, learned Senior counsel representing the Mutt submitted that petitioner No.1 association is not a bona fide association, that the association is mainly intended to serve the interests of a few individuals and their family members such as petitioner No.2, his mother, father and brother, petitioner No.4, his wife, son, two of his brothers and wife of one of his brothers, that the petitioners have been coming out with changed versions of their places of residence and also on their economic status in different Writ Petitions, that the petitioners have been abusing the process of the Courts and law by repeatedly approaching this Court for different reliefs and that the petitioners failed to prove that power supply was released in accordance with law. The learned Senior counsel further argued that except claiming through the purported permanent lessees and filing two unregistered documents, the petitioners failed to prima facie establish their legal title over and lawful possession of the land in question. He has further submitted that even assuming that the electricity connections were given in favour of some of the petitioners, they were disconnected in pursuance of the directions of the Lokayukta and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, as their very occupation itself is wholly illegal and unauthorized. The learned Senior counsel lamented that huge extents of the land belonging to the Mutt are under the occupation of land grabbers and unscrupulous elements and that the Courts of law may not show any indulgence in favour of such persons. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that except to petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 7 and 11, power supply was not released to the other petitioners. He has also submitted that in view of the decision taken in the meeting conveyed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, in pursuance of the directions given by the Lokayukta, respondent No.3 has disconnected the power supply. He submitted that in the event of this Court deciding to direct restoration of power supply, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not in a position to restore the power to the disconnected premises in view of breaking of the electrical poles and the wires. Therefore, submits the learned counsel, in such an event, respondent Nos.4 and 5 may be directed to provide necessary funds for replacing all the damaged poles and wires. Smt. Ch. Vedavani, learned Standing counsel, reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4. The background facts: Before adverting to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is not only useful, but also necessary to refer to the background leading to the disputes between the parties. In the report dated 10.01.2005 of Administration (Vigilance and Enforcement) Department, a copy of which has been filed by the Mutt, the historical background of the Mutt has been stated. It is evident from this report that the Mutt was established about five centuries ago to propagate the tenets of Ramanda Sampradaya. During the British rule, it has authorized the then Mahant Sri Savadasjee, who was the Mahant of the Mutt to discharge the duties of Vicharanakartha to administer the temple