THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2681 of 1996 Dated:16th July, 2010 Between: The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer, TTD, Tirupati. ….Petitioner and 1. The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Tirupati, Chittoor District & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2681 of 1996 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the lease deed dated 21.10.1995 executed by respondents 1 to 6 in favour of 7th respondent and also irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed and registered by respondents 1 to 6 in favour of 8th respondent as illegal and void. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is:- Respondents 1 to 6 executed a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1995 for a period of 99 years in respect of land bearing Sy.No.679/2 admeasuring Ac.27.15 cents situated in Tirumala Hills in favour of 7th respondent. They also executed irrevocable registered General Power of Attorney on 27.10.1995 in favour of 8th respondent. According to the writ petitioner, registered lease deed is in contravention of Section 123 of the Endowment Act 30 of 1987 and rules 205 and 211 of the Rules made thereunder. 3. As per Rule 204 of the rules framed under Chapter XXVI, all private lease and sub-lease shall be null and void unless specific permission is given by the Executive Officer. The registered sale deed executed by respondents 2 to 6 is without obtaining permission of the writ petitioner, and therefore, it is void. The writ petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 1995 of the file of Principal Subordinate Judge’ Court, Tirupati for declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.679/2 admeasuring Ac.27.15 cents besides other lands mentioned in `A’ schedule. Pending the suit, an interlocutory application being I.A.No.423 of 1995 was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating the plaint `A’ schedule lands. A n ex parte interim injunction came to be granted on 10.4.1995. The defendants therein filed C.M.A.No.539 of 1995 assailing the order of injunction granted in favour of the writ petitioner and the said appeal ended in dismissal on 2.5.1995. It is categorically stated in the appeal that the appellants are not keen in disposing of the properties before disposal of the injunction application. However, respondents 2 to 7 proceeded to execute the lease deed followed by irrevocable general power of attorney with a view to circumvent the above assurance in the suit proceedings. Since the lease deed and irrevocable General Power of Attorney are in contravention of the Section 123 of the Act and also Rules 204 of the Rules, they are liable to be set aside. 4. The relief sought for in the writ petition reads as hereunder:- “It is, therefore, just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:- (i) to issue a rule nisi calling for the records leading up to and inclusive of the impugned proceedings registered lease deed dt.21-10-1995 read with registered irrevocable power of attorney dt.27-10-1995executed by the respondents 2 to 6. (ii) to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the lease deed dt.21-10-995 executed and registered by the respondents 1 to 6 in favour of 7th respondent read with registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed and registered by the respondents 1 to 6 in favour of the 7th respondent are illegal and void; and (iii) to restrain the respondents 1 and 7to 9 from proceeding with the further activities in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dt.21-10-1995 and 27-10-1995 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 5. Rule Nisi came to be ordered on 01.4.1996. Though respondents entered appearance through a counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed as on this day. 6. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.10.2007, Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit O.S.No.69 of 1995 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 herein ended in dismissal and thereupon, the writ petitioner challenged the judgment and decree in the said suit by filing an appeal being A.S.No.3580 of 2004 and the said appeal came to be allowed on 27.10.2006. The unsuccessful party in the appeal carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Appeal and the same ended in dismissal on 16.4.2007. Learned counsel further submitted that in the appeal, specific finding was given that the petitioner is the owner of 27.15 cents in Sy.No.679/2 of Tirumala village. Much emphasis has been made on paras 77 and 78 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “77. In the light of the instances of fraud as indicated above and in the light of the legal position referred above, the earlier judgments given by the Revenue Authorities and the Courts will not operate as res judicata and the plaintiff not estopped from raising all the pleas in the present suit, which were raised earlier in view of the fraud played by the defendants. In view of the above discussion, it is declared that the plaintiff has title to the suit property and the findings of the Inam Tribunal are vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud and collusion between the officials of the plaintiff statutory authorities and the defendants and their predecessors. It is further directed that the defendants shall surrender the land detailed in plaint `B’ schedule and there shall be an injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaint `A’ schedule property. 78. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment of the lower Court by holding that the earlier judgments rendered by the Revenue authorities and Courts do not operate as res judicata and they are nullity and non-est in the eye of law. The plaintiffs are not estopped from raising the pleas, which were raised earlier in view of the fraud played by the defendants. The suit covered by O.S.No.69 of 1995 is decreed by declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint `A’ schedule property and directing that the defendants shall surrender the possession of the land covered by `B’ schedule and there shall be a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaint `A’ schedule property with costs throughout”. Since there was no representation on behalf of the respondents on 13.7.2010, the writ petition was listed under the caption `for orders” on this day. 7. This writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner pending the civil suit being O.S.No.69 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The civil litigation between the parties has attained finality. A Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Survey No.679/2 admeasuring Ac.27.15 cents situated in Tirumala Hills is part and parcel of the suit schedule properties. When the writ petitioner has been declared as the owner in the civil suit, no cause survives in this Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th July, 2010. Rar/cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2681 of 1996 Dated:16th July, 2010