HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos. 641 AND 642 OF 2009 Date: 19-11-2010 Between: Nunna Sri Rangachari ……… Appellant and Sri Venugopala Swamyvari Temple and others ……….. Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos. 641 AND 642 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per HACJ) These Appeals arise, under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, at the instance of the appellants, who happened to be the contesting respondents in W.P.Nos.10099 of 2008 and 3786 of 2008 filed by the first respondent-temple, which were allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court, through the orders, dated 09-04-2009, wherein by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the said temple in W.P.No.10099 of 2008 sought for a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings, dated 29-04-2004 of the second respondent therein-Mandal Revenue Officer of Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently to set at naught the alleged registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.01AA 969215 and 01AA 96925, dated 15-07-2004 executed in the office of the Registrar, Vizianagaram in favour of the appellants, as non-est in the eye of law and to direct them not to act on those sales; and in W.P.No.3786 of 2008 sought for a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent therein-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Village, Vizianagaram District, made in Rc.No.714/04/A, dated 22-12-2006 and the subsequent issue of pattadar passbooks and title deed books in favour of the third respondent as without jurisdiction, and non-est in the eye of law. 2. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants herein, and the learned Government Pleaders for Endowments and Revenue and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments. 3. Briefly, the facts, which gave rise to the present proceedings, are that the subject matter involved in the dispute is in Sy.Nos.7/1, 7/2 and 7/3 admeasuring Acs.15-04 cents and Sy.Nos.6/1 and 6/2 admeasuring Acs.16-05 cents situated at Kothavalasa Mandal of Vizianagaram District. The said property is claimed as the land belonging to the first respondent-temple. Whereas the appellants also laid a claim for the said property in their own exclusive proprietary right, title and interest. According to the appellants, who are the purchasers under the aforesaid sale deeds, the said land was originally granted patta in the year 1998 on consent from the temple only. A writ petition filed by the appellants in W.P.No.35480 of 1998 in respect of certain steps taken in regard to the said land was dismissed on 16-04-2003 and since there is an alternative remedy, the Review W.P.M.P.No.9610 of 2003 filed to review the said order was resulted in dismissal with directions to the department to look into the records and take a decision by the District Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer. Accordingly, in pursuance of the said directions, the Mandal Revenue Officer has passed the impugned orders, dated 15-07-2004 in favour of the appellants herein holding that the temple has no right, title and interest, but it is only a valid proprietary claim of the appellants and therefore, the temple is not entitled to any claim over the same. Assailing the same, the writ petitions were filed by the temple mainly on the ground that irrespective of the directions as given earlier to the revenue authorities to go into all the questions of title, the fact remains that the land belongs to the temple and the revenue authorities could not have gone into any such claim overriding their jurisdiction and also overtaking the jurisdiction, which is vested on both sides, namely the authority as constituted under the Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1976 (for short ‘Inams Act’) and the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘Endowments Act’) apart from the regular ordinary jurisdiction of the civil Court. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and not maintainable. 4. Whereas the case of the appellants contesting the writ petitions was to the effect that the temple has absolutely no right, title and interest, which lays any valid claim, and their claim has been rightly upheld after going into various records including the adangal of the relevant periods especially that of the year 1949, which shows the entries in their favour and further the impugned orders are passed after notice to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, who represent the department and also the temple, and therefore, the said finding is binding. That apart, the case of the appellants was that except the entry in the register as contemplated under Section 38 of the Endowments Act, there is no other evidence or material in support of the claim of the temple and, therefore, the entire claim is unsustainable and those findings cannot be disturbed in any manner. 5. The learned single Judge, by taking into account the respective submissions and also the questions as involved especially as to the very claim set forth from both sides, pounced upon the authorities, who passed the impugned order, dated 15-07-2004, namely Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, especially observing that it has a quite relevant bearing on the lis and also points arose in these proceedings namely that the petitioner was granted patta bearing No.489 in respect of Acs.15-05 cents in the said survey numbers at Kothavalasa village under the provisions of the Inams Act, and the revenue authorities approved the temple to part with the land on payment of compensation for the purpose of providing house sites for the flood victims, for which the permission was granted by the Commissioner of Endowments and when these proceedings were pending and the compensation aspect is being gone into, the third respondent in the writ petition, namely appellant No.1 herein, has filed W.P.No.35480 of 1998 and the same was dismissed having regard to the serious question of title being involved and, ultimately, left option to appellant No.3 to approach the civil Court for appropriate comprehensive relief of declaration of title etc. Thereafter, appellant No.3 has made an unsuccessful attempt by filing a review application in the said writ petition. 6. After taking into account various submissions made from both sides, the learned single Judge did not find favour with appellant No.3 in respect of the claim and has taken into account the observations, which have been made in the order passed in the review application on 16-04-2003, which read as follows: “The revenue authorities i.e., the respondents 1 and 3 shall conduct an enquiry basing on the statutorily maintained register by the respondent No.4-Endowments dept. under Section 43 of the Act and also basing on adangals and other related document of the year 1949 and after identification of the same, shall come to a conclusion with regard to the claim of the petitioner. It is made clear that in the enquiry if it is found that the disputed land belongs to the petitioner, the case of the impleaded respondents 5 to 75 for assignment of the land, shall be considered from out of the land belonging to the temple.” 7. The learned single Judge has extracted the entire relevant portion of the order in the review application and observed that the direction in fact transgresses the normal powers even a civil Court could not have and by taking advantage of the said observations in the order passed in the review application, which are of general in nature, the Mandal Revenue Officer has virtually assumed, firstly the powers of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments as contemplated under Section 43 of the Endowments Act; secondly the powers of the appellate authority under the provisions of the Inams Act in going into the correctness of the ryotwari patta in favour of the temple; and thirdly the powers of the civil Court to decide the title of the property and thus ultimately he gave a finding on the title to the effect that the land is not the gifted or endowed property of the Deity or temple and it is the appellant No.3, who is in possession of the same. No doubt the Mandal Revenue Officer has referred to certain records, however, he went on to observe that the entries made in the Fair Adangal and F.C.O. might not be correct and that the Assistant Commissioner has reported that Survey No.7 corresponding to O.S.No.251-B is not mentioned in the register as maintained under Section 38 of the Endowments Act. Thus, on perusal of the entire proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the learned Single Judge felt that the entire approach of the officer requires to be condemned apart from the fact that the officer has been overanxious in trying to protect appellant No.1 rather than exercising the powers independently by going into any question in the manner as required or expected and within the frame work of the law. The learned single Judge also observed that in spite of the direction in the order in the review petition to conduct an enquiry, yet there is no proper consultation or approval of the District Collector. It is further observed that the proceedings under the Inams Act could not have been sit over or gone into either by the District Collector or even by the civil Court apart from the power as sought to be exercised by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the extent of going into and giving a finding with regard to possession in favour of appellant No.3. Thus the learned single Judge held that there is a clear mala fide intention on the part of the Mandal Revenue Officer in going to the extent of deciding serious question of title and possession apart from observations made against appellant No.3 herein in regard to the resort as made by him in trying to grab the properties and interdicting with the institution. Thus ultimately the writ petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 29-04-2004 were set aside and further held that the alleged sale deeds, dated 15-07-2004 are of no legal consequence and directed that in case the land is to be acquired by the Government, the compensation shall have to be put in a fixed deposit in the name of the temple and the same shall be utilized for the developmental activities. If it is not acquired, the leasehold rights shall be put to auction every year and the amounts received thereof shall have to be put in the fixed deposit. Hence, these appeals. 8. On behalf of the appellants, the main contention raised is to the effect that there is absolutely no basis or any valid material in support of the temple to claim the right, title and interest whatsoever in nature, which is worth deserving the title as substantiated by the appellants, and therefore, the learned single Judge was not right in going into all these aspects in the manner which has been considered. 9. These submissions were sought to be repealed on behalf of the respondents herein contending that there is absolutely no justification for the appellants to claim right, title and interest, either on merits or otherwise, and the entire attempt is only to grab the property in some or the other manner other than justifying under a valid claim. 10. Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the material, the aspect, which requires to be adjudged, is whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the authorities at all level are right in setting at naught the entire proceedings and upholding the claim of the appellants herein and consequently whether the authorities have jurisdiction to go into any such question. 11. Undisputedly the very property is being claimed by the temple and also by the appellants herein. The claim of the temple is that the land belongs to it as required in the register maintained under Section 38 of the Endowments Act. Further the patta was granted in respect of the very same land in favour of the temple and the same has become final and remained unassailed in any manner either by the appellants or by the temple. Whereas the claim of the appellants herein is based upon certain adangals and other documents as sought to be shown, and in these Appeals an application is also filed to introduce certain additional material like registered gift deed, dated 29- 01-1876 in support of the claim. Irrespective of the consideration of the documents, prima facie, it is need to be seen that the nature of the enquiry ultimately landed both the parties into the present arena of lis and the fact remains that there is a patta granted in favour of the temple under the provisions of the Inams Act and the same was not challenged by the appellants herein. Further there exists the entry in the register maintained under Section 38 of the Endowments Act in favour of the temple. These entries, as per the law, are prima facie showing that the property belongs to the temple, though it could also be said that such entries are always subject to rebuttal and also establishing in the manner as known under the law dispelling the correctness of the entries and getting it set aside by appropriate proceedings. However, the appellants are unable to show this Court that any such proceedings are vitiated or taken up by them in assailing the correctness of those proceedings or at least to hold that the temple has no right, but it is only private proprietary rights in favour of the appellants. No doubt certain entries are sought to be relied on by the appellants herein including the additional documents, which have been filed in this appeal. The appellant Nos.1 and 3 have made unsuccessful attempt in approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.35480 of 1998, which has resulted in dismissal and also the review thereon. It is only on the basis of certain observations made by this Court, while disposing of the review application, directing the authorities to go into the claim and decide upon the question, the impugned orders came to be in existence. 12. It is now well established that necessarily having regard to the nature of the questions as involved, which virtually pertain to the proprietary rights claimed by the appellants as against the institutional rights claimed by the temple, the law, which takes care of the subject matter or the questions as may require to be gone into, is not only the provisions of the Endowments Act, but also the provisions of the Inams Act. Under both the legislations regular remedies are available under common law. 13. There is hierarchy of the authorities and also hierarchy of the remedies, provided one after the other and one above the other wherever any party including an institution which knocks the door of the authorities and to have the right, title and interest whatsoever in nature including the correctness of the entries to be gone into. This apart, even in regard to the entries in the revenue records, the concerned legislations like A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’) takes due care of such situation providing due remedies and contemplating detailed enquiry to be gone into and take decision in regard to the correctness of the same. Even taking into account all these fronts, namely Endowments Act, Inams Act and ROR Act, these are all common law remedies before a civil Court. It is needless to reiterate that each one has got its own limited sphere of jurisdiction and one does not overlap on the other. Each one’s jurisdiction is exclusive and excludes that of the other. Apart from the common law remedy before the civil Court, all the other legislations are special in its nature and virtually exclusive jurisdiction of the normal civil Court under the common law. There cannot be any overlapping of the jurisdiction especially where such rights are to be involved. The rights as contemplated under the Inams Act are totally independent, different and specific. Similarly the rights under the Endowments Act and also ROR Act again stand upon. Apart from the interest of the State, it is the interest of the institutions, which are concerned with any such property, which is sufficiently taken care of and the same are being protected. Therefore, if at all any person is aggrieved as against either the entries under the Endowments Act or Inams Act or ROR Act, necessarily one has to approach the remedies and have it properly decided in favour or against, without which none of these proceedings can form part of any enquiry either before a civil Court or before one of the authorities under any one of those legislations. Each one has to be separately knocked and independently set aside. 14. With this background, the direction, under which the appellants went to take advantage, is in respect of an enquiry which is directed to be conducted by the authorities under the review order. The said review order and the proceedings, which arose therefrom in a writ, are only in respect of a challenge made by the appellants herein against the proceedings issued under the Inams Act and this Court did not accept any of the claims of the appellants either in the proprietary right or an occupant. Yet, it is only with a view to have their claim being appropriately gone into. The learned Single Judge of this Court has given the direction to hold such an enquiry by the revenue authorities namely, District Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer. It is needless to mention that the Mandal Revenue Officer, as contemplated in the hierarchy of revenue administration, virtually is at the lowest ebb on whom certain powers are conferred by different revenue laws. However, it is also established that any of the revenue authorities could not have possibly gone into any such serious questions of right, title and interest including possession. The said proceedings of which a direction was given does not arise out of any of the proceedings arising under the ROR Act or even under the Inams Act as such in the manner as contemplated under the law or in any appropriate proceedings, which have been taken course by the appellants as per the provisions of the respective legislations. Therefore, it cannot be said that those directions would in any way confer a jurisdiction on the Mandal Revenue Officer or even the District Collector to go into such wider questions of right, title and interest which have an interloping or interconnection or overlapping also in respect of Endowments Act or Inams Act or ROR Act and in general the common law rights. Therefore, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the Mandal Revenue Officer could not have gone beyond the jurisdiction and that too without proper ascertainment and sufficient opportunity is provided, and without necessary consultation as required at all levels and apart from the above, it is only thereafter possibly it could have been said that there is due exercise of conducting proper enquiry and not one sided approach. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the Mandal Revenue Officer has transgressed not only the limits but also the jurisdiction by upholding the proprietary rights of the appellants herein as against that of the temple. That apart, as rightly pointed, the Mandal Revenue Officer could not have gone into any questions of right, title and interest of a temple, which is exclusively within the purview of the Endowments Act. 16. Therefore, on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances and also the proceedings as arose earlier, it can safely be said that those directions given by this Court would not confer any wider powers of jurisdiction on the Mandal Revenue Officer to set at naught those proceedings which pertain to the Endowments Act, Inams Act and also ROR Act apart from the common law rights. We are in entire agreement with the observations made by the learned single Judge and we do not find any reason to come to any different conclusion. That apart, even the appellants have utterly failed to make out any case to warrant interference by this Court apart from the failure to show as to how the Mandal Revenue Officer could have gone into such roving aspect of right, title and interest. Hence, we do not find any merits in these appeals. 17. The Writ Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, HACJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: -11-2010 YCR