IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23754 of 2005 Between: The Building Constructions Labour Association, Brahmin Street, Dharmavaram, Reptd., by its President Sri Yemba Linganna. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Karanam Ramesh. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Endowments. This 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 Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not executing the registered sale deeds in respect of the land in Survey No.649/1A1 and 649/1A2 admeasuring Ac.13.02 cents and Ac.15.02 cents respectively situated in Dharmavaram town in favour of the members of the petitioner-Association in pursuance of auction held on 8-5-2003, which was confirmed by respondent No.1 by proceedings dated 22-7-2003, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondents. The petitioner-Association comprises labourers with initial membership of 1130 members, who are houseless. The lands in question, belonging to Sri Lakshmi Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, Dharmavaram, Anantapuram district, were notified for public auction in the daily newspaper on 8-4-2002 and in the official Gazette on 3-5-2002 calling for objections and suggestions from the general public as required under Section 80(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner averred that on the report submitted by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 accorded permission under Section 80(1)(a) of the Act to sell the land by Tender-cum-Public Auction by his proceedings dated 30-7-2002; that public auction was conducted on 8-5-2003 in the presence of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kurnool Region and other officers of the Department; and that the petitioner-Association participated in the auction and offered the highest rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre in respect of the land in Survey No.649/1A1, Rs.55,000/- per acre in respect of the land in Survey No.649/1A2, and Rs.1,10,000/- per acre for the land comprised in Survey No.649/1A3. It is further averred that the said offers of the petitioner were accepted and the petitioner deposited the sale consideration. It is also averred that respondent No.1 by proceedings dated 22-7-2003 and 22-12-2003 accepted sale proposals and confirmed the sale under Rule 14 of the Alienation of Immovable Property Rules, 1987 and directed respondent No.4 to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner- Association. Despite the said direction given by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 has not registered the sale deeds. Meanwhile, the members of the petitioner-Association resolved to allot Ac.10.00 of land in Survey No.649/1A3 to Carpenters’ Association. Hence, the petitioner-Association filed the present Writ Petition confining its claim only in respect of the land in Survey Nos.649/1A1 and 649/1A2. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 4. In their counter-affidavits they have admitted the above-mentioned facts, which include the fact that the petitioner offered highest bid amounts that were accepted; and the further fact that respondent No.1 confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 in his counter-affidavit admitted that the money deposited by the petitioner was kept in FDR and all the required formalities under Section 80 of the Act were complied with except execution of the sale deeds. He has, however, stated that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner communicated a Circular in Circular in Rc.No.B2/6774/01/Adm, dated 2-6-2005, wherein he directed all the Assistant Commissioners to direct all the Executive Officers and Managers working in his control not to register any properties belonging to the Institution for which compromise proceedings were passed by the then Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad under Section 89(2) of the Act and to stop immediate registration of temple lands. It is stated that the said Circular was issued in pursuance of interim order dated 7-6-2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WPMP No.15055 of 2005 in Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005. I have carefully perused the record. The fact that the property in question was notified for auction with the permission of respondent No.1 is admitted. Similarly, the petitioner, who participated in the auction, emerged as the highest bidder and it’s bids were accepted and the sale was confirmed by respondent No.1 is also admitted. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their counter- affidavits categorically admitted that the entire sale consideration was deposited by the petitioner- Association and all the requirements of Section 80 of the Act were complied with except registration of the property. The only reason put-forth by the respondents for not registering the property is the purported Circular of respondent No.2 in Rc.No.B2/6774/01/Adm, dated 2- 6-2005. It is, therefore, necessary to reproduce the contents of the said Circular, hereunder: “The attention of all the Assistant Commissioners of Kurnool division is invited to the reference cited and they are instructed not to register any properties belonging to the institution for which compromise proceedings were passed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, U/s.89(2) of the Act 30/97 upto 31-5-05 and to stop immediately registering temple lands or from taking any steps to part with temple lands. Further they are instructed to issue suitable instructions to the Executive Officer, Executive Authorities and Managers under their control in this regard and submit report without fail. Any failure in implementing the above orders will be viewed very seriously”. It is clear from the above extracted Circular that on the basis of certain instructions given by the Commissioner in his Circular dated 3-8-2005, the same was issued. In the said Circular respondent No.2 instructed the Assistant Commissioners of Kurnool Division not to register any properties belonging to the Institution for which compromise proceedings were passed by the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 89(2) of the Act upto 31-5-2005. Thus, the instructions - not to register transactions in respect of the properties of the Institution - apply only to the properties for which compromise proceedings were issued by the Commissioner. It is no one’s case that in respect of the lands in question any compromise proceedings were issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department. Therefore, I am at a loss to know how this Circular is seen as an impediment for the respondents to register the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner, who admittedly deposited the entire sale consideration in pursuance of an auction sale. Since the respondents referred to order dated 7-6- 2005 passed in WPMP No.15055 of 2005 in Writ Petition no.11812 of 2005, which was stated to be the basis for respondent No.2 to issue such a Circular, I have perused a copy of the same furnished at the time of hearing by one of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the said order it is directed that no sales of endowment lands shall be effected without the permission of the Court till further orders and no compromise shall be affected under Section 89 until further orders from this Court with respect to endowment lands. Though the pleadings in the said Writ Petition are not before this Court, a plain reading of the said order suggests that there is a prohibition on sales of endowments lands, which shall necessarily mean that the prohibition is on future sales to be effected after passing of the said order. Respondent No.1, having regard to the said order evidently issued Circular dated 3-8-2005, based on which respondent No.2 issued Circular dated 2-6-2005. The admitted facts narrated above clearly show that auction was conducted on 8-5- 2003 and sales were confirmed by respondent No.1, who is the competent authority under Section 80 of the Act, as far back as 22-7-2003 and 22-12-2003. Thus, in my considered opinion, neither the order of this Court nor the Circulars, as discussed above, prevented registration of sale deeds in the instant case. Therefore, there is no justification, whatsoever, for the respondents not to register sale deeds in respect of the lands, which were sold through a legitimate legal process. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to initiate immediate steps to register the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. They shall complete the process of registration of sale deeds within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Since substantial amount belonging to the petitioner- Association, whose members evidently belong to economically weaker sections, was kept in FDR and the members of the petitioner-Association were denied the benefit of usage of land, it is just and necessary that the interest on the FDR shall be paid to the petitioner- Association. ---------------------------------- ------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01-07-2008 MNR