IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13638 of 1996 Between: 1 Narra Gopaiah S/o. Kotaiah, R/o. Badrachalam Khammam Dist. 2 Narra Narayana S/o. Kotaiah R/o. Badrachalam Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, AP 2 The Director of Settlement, Hyderabad, AP 3 The Settlement Officer, Venkatapuram Unit, Khammam Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Badrachalam, Khammam Dist. 5 Kusuma Haranadha Baba, rep.by Managing Trustee Badrachalam ....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 writ, order or direction, a writ in nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Procgs. of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P. Hyderabad passed in File No.L1/1484/87,dt: 10/4/96 and the petitioners pray that the same may be quashed. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13638 of 1996 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Proceedings in File No.L1/1484/87, dated 10-4-1996 of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of the land in Sy.Nos.113/2 and 116/1P of an extent of Ac.1.80 cts and Ac.0.70 cts situated at Bhadrachalam of Khammam District having been purchased through a registered sale deed dated 25-6-1955 from Kusuma Harinadha Baba Temple, represented by its trustee Polisetti Ramadas. On the advent of A.P. (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulations,1970, an enquiry was sought to be conducted by the Settlement Officer, Venkatapuram Unit on the ground that the said Regulation is applicable to the subject land. The Settlement Officer in Case No.7259 by an Order dated 10-7-1979 disallowed the claim of the petitioners for ryotwari patta covered by the land in Survey Nos.113/2 and 116/1P and allowed the patta in the name of Lord Kusuma Haranatha Baba. Assailing the said Order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who by an Order dated 29-9-1987 in A.P.No.9 of 1980 dismissed the appeal and cancelled the patta granted in favour of Sri Kusuma Haranadha Baba Temple. Challenging the said Order, petitioner No.1 filed further appeal before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, who by an Order dated 10-4-1996 in File No.L1/1484/87 dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 stating inter alia that the two sons of Veeranna executed sale deed dated 15-1-1945 in respect of Ac.6.00 of land in favour of Kusuma Haranath Baba Temple. While so, one P.Ramdas, who was a Trustee of the said Temple, sold the subject land of Ac.2.50 covered by Sy.Nos.113/2 and 116/1 through registered sale deed dated 24-5-1955 to the petitioners. The said trustee cannot execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners, as he is not empowered to sell or alienate the lands of the Temple and as he did not obtain prior permission of the Government. Further, as per Section 103 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,1966, the lands cannot vest in any person, if they have not vested in him before 30-9-1951. Petitioners have not filed any document to show the exemption of sale and as such, the alleged sale will not confer any right over the property. Respondents 1 to 3 have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. It is an admitted fact that one Veeranna was the owner and possessor of the land in question. His two sons – Akula Lakshmaiah and Govindu – executed a sale deed dated 15-1-1945 in respect of Acs.6.00 of land in favour of Kusuma Haranath Baba Temple. In turn, the Trustee of the Temple sold the property to the petitioners through registered sale deed dated 25-6-1955. The petitioners raised a ground that the Temple in question was not registered under the provisions of the Madras Act or under the earlier Act of 1927 and as such, it was not governed by the provisions of the Endowments Act by then. Further, as the land was not fetching any income and there was no water source also, the Trustees of the Temple felt that the sale of the land is highly beneficial and the sale proceeds could be utilized for better purpose. Under those circumstances, the trustee sold the land by registered sale deed dated 24-6-1955 in their favour. Since the Endowments Act is not applicable to the Temple, the sale made by the Trustee is valid and legal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the petitioners have raised the above grounds before the Settlement Officer, the same were not considered either by the Settlement Officer or the appellate authorities. From a perusal of the Order of the Settlement Officer, as confirmed by the Director and Commissioner, it is seen that the said plea was not considered and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be correct. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and to meet the ends of justice, it is desirable that the matter needs to be remanded to the Settlement Officer for consideration afresh. Therefore, the impugned Orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for consideration afresh, after hearing all the parties concerned including the 5th respondent herein and passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs. 25-7-2008 prk