IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7780 of 2005 Between: Jeeru Ganesh Reddy S/o. Appala Reddy H/o. Chittivalasa, Bheemunipatnam (M), Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Bhoggulakunta, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Turner Choultry, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Sub-Registrar, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Kota Mallikharjuna Rao S/o. Appala Narasayya, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 to 4 in not taking appropriate steps to protect the land an extent of Ac. 40.00 cents in R.S.No.s 68/17, 68, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of Chillapeta, H/o. Chittivalasa, Bhimunipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which was endowed the Endowments Department by late Motumarri China Sanyasi Setty and allowing the 6th Respondent to sell away the same without any manner of right as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.6: Sri V. Ravinder Rao The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 7780 of 2005 Oral Order: Based on a news item published in the local newspapers, the petitioner, who is a villager, has filed this writ petition questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not taking appropriate steps to protect the land admeasuring Ac. 40.00 cents situated in R.S. Nos. 68, 68/17, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of Chillapeta, H/o Chittivalasa, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which was endowed by late Motumarri China Sanyasi Setty to the Endowments Department and allowing respondent No.6 to sell away the same without any manner of right. The case of the petitioner is that one late Motumarri China Sanyasi Setty was the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac. 40.00 cents, situated in R.S. Nos. 68, 68/17, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of Chillapeta village, H/o Chittivalasa, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. During his lifetime, the said China Sanyasi Setty had executed a family settlement deed on 10.12.1912, transferring his interest in the said land in favour of Motumarri China Maha Lakshmi for her enjoyment during her lifetime, and after her death, the same shall devolve upon the Endowments Department. In pursuance of the said family settlement deed, the said China Maha Lakshmamma had created a trust with four persons and managed the properties with the help of the trustees by leasing out the same till her death on 01.06.1965. The further case of the petitioner is that after the death of China Maha Lakshmi, the interest and title over the said property shall devolve upon the Endowments Department, as per the registered settlement deed executed by the original owner, but respondent No.6 and others with the help of local politicians, started negotiations to sell away the said land to some third parties, as if they are the owners of the said property. On coming to know of the same, all the villagers have submitted representations to the respondents requesting them to protect the said land from the land grabbers and utilize the same for the purpose for which they were endowed, but in vain. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.1-Commissioner as well as respondent No.5-Sub- Registrar and respondent No.6 filed their respective counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the counter affidavits, particularly the counter affidavit of respondent No.1-Commissioner, is that one Motamarri Narasimhulu Shetty executed a registered Will dated 07.04.1890 in favour of Motamarri China Sanyasi Shetty, making certain arrangements to some of his immovable properties to Motamarri China Sanyasi Shetty and some properties for Dharmam i.e., Charity. Pursuant to the Will dated 07.04.1890, the said Motamarri China Sanyasi Shetty became the absolute owner of some properties as mentioned in the will, including the land admeasuring Ac. 40.00, situated at Chillapet village, H/o Chittavasala, Bheemunipatnem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Later the said China Sanyasi Shetty, executed a settlement deed in the year 1912, nominating himself as life trustee and after his life time he nominated three persons as trustees, namely his wife Peda Mahalakshmamma, his adopted son Ramalakshmi Narasimhayya and his son-in-law Pursarla Subba Rao, to carry out the above charity. The B schedule property mentioned in the said settlement deed was set apart for charity purpose i.e., for providing meals to Brahmins and also Sadavarthi to Brahmins with an expenditure not more than Rs. 40/- per month from the income realized from ’B’ schedule properties after meeting necessary expenditure to the property, and the remaining income from ‘B’ schedule property, after meeting the expenditure as stated above was to be kept as reserve fund for meeting further expenditure for his family members in emergency and to meet the expenditure for repairs to ‘B’ Schedule property and to remove any encroachment in the property in future. It is further stated that in the year 1972 an Executive Officer was appointed to the subject charity, and when the Motamarri family members vehemently objected to action of the Executive Officer in taking over possession of the property along with records, accounts etc., the Executive officer filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, against the Motamarri family members for recovery of records and accounts etc., and the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, by order dated 15.10.1974, allowed the said petition. Thereafter, one Appala Narasaiah, who is a GPA holder of Motamarri family members, filed a compromise petition under Section 79(2) of the Endowments Act before the Commissioner, who by order dated 09.08.1978, allowed the said compromise petition raising the charge over the properties of the charities on fulfilling certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. Pursuant to the said orders of the Commissioner, the Motamarri family members deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is further stated that they do not know about respondent No.6 executing sale deeds in respect of the said property in favour of some third parties and presenting before the Sub-Registrar, Bheemili for registration, and that as per the Will deed dated 07.04.1890 and settlement deed dated 10.12.1912, the property belongs to Endowments Department and they are taking appropriate steps to protect the said property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, and the learned counsel for respondent No.6. The learned counsel for respondent No.6, reiterating the counter averments, contends that the legal heirs of the charitable trust have acquired the properties by way of a registered Will, and in view of the orders dated 09.08.1978 passed by the Commissioner in the compromise petition, raising the charge on the properties on payment of the charity amount of Rs. 40/- from 01.01.1967 till the date of order and also further payment of Rs.25,000/-, and in view of the admission made by respondent No.1 that pursuant to his orders an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited, and the amount so deposited served the object of the charity for which it was created, the Endowment Department cannot claim any right, title or interest over the property, and that the legal heirs of the charitable trust have become absolute owners of the properties and they are entitled to sell the same. He further submits that even though as against the said compromise orders passed by the Commissioner, one P. Sreeramulu filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 2059 of 1978, this Court, by order dated 16.09.1980, dismissed the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the Government and file a revision petition, and it was brought to the notice of this Court that no revision petition is filed against the said orders. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 further contends that some of the legal heirs of the charity have already filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 263 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking a declaration that they are the trustees of Motumarri Sanyasayya Charities and that they are entitled to possession of the trust properties, and the Civil Court has come to a conclusion that the settlement deed dated 10.12.1912 was only a sham and nominal document and there is no trust as such created under the document, but only a charge over the charity was created and even that charge was also raised by the competent authority under the Endowments Act, and accordingly the said suit was dismissed, by judgment dated 28.04.1994. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 further contends that in view of the orders dated 09.08.1978, passed by the Commissioner of Endowments in the compromise petition as well as the decree of the Civil Court passed in O.S. No. 263 of 1985, he is entitled to sell the properties and the petitioner has no locus standi to question the same. Insofar as the said contentions raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.6 is concerned, this Court, merely based on the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 263 of 1985 as well as the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments in the compromise petition, cannot go into the disputed questions of fact as to whether respondent No.6 is the owner of the subject property and whether he is entitled to sell the same or not, and decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when it is the specific case of respondent No.1-Commissioner that as per the Will dated 07.04.1890 and settlement deed dated 10.12.1912, the property belongs to Endowments Department and they are taking appropriate steps to protect the said property. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded ignorance of the proceedings that took place before various courts, as stated by respondent No.6 in his counter. However, having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.1-Commissioner of Endowments Department in the counter, as stated above, which protects the interest of the charity, for whose protection the petitioner filed the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of the charity having been served and the interest of the petitioner having been stood redressed by the Endowments Department, no orders need be passed in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioner from agitating before the appropriate forum questioning the findings given by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 263 of 1985 as well as the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments in the compromise petition, after ascertaining the requisite details. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 21st February, 2008. KSR/Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}