THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25000 of 1999 25.1.2008 Between: S.V.Koteswara Sarma, S/o.Madhavaiah @ Madhavarao …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowment) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25000 of 1999 ORDER: Petitioner is statedly Archaka of Sri Someswara Swamy Temple, Bapatla, represented by Executive Officer; fourth respondent herein. He is allegedly in possession of land admeasuring Acs.1.40 (out of Acs.4.39) in survey No.1004/3 of Bapatla Town. He alleges that the land was given as inam burdened with service to Temple. Executive Officer of Temple sought permission from second respondent to sell the land to Government of Andhra Pradesh in Revenue Department by negotiations for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. As required under Section 80(1)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Endowments Act, for brevity), second respondent issued notice bearing No.M2/3354/99-1, dated 05.3.1999, inviting objections for such sale. Petitioner having come to know about the same got issued reply through lawyer alleging that petitioner was given 1/3rd share of the land for the purpose of rendering Nithya Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam, that he is entitled for Acs.1.40, that he is in possession of the land and nobody else has right to alienate the same. He further alleged that Revenue authorities visited the land on 19.11.1999 and on 20.11.1999 and surveyed the land. They also allegedly made attempts to dispossess the petitioner. Therefore he filed the instant writ petition seeking direction to respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession in respect of Acs.1.40 in survey No.1004/3 and to declare notice issued by second respondent under Section 80(1)(b) of Endowments Act as illegal and arbitrary. The Executive Officer of the Temple and Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) – fifth respondent; filed separate counters. The contents of both the counters are same. Respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter. The MRO, in the counter, has stated that the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for brevity) for providing house sites to weaker sections of Bapatla. He has given details of various statutory notifications under LA Act and also alleged that advance possession was taken on 19.7.1997 after paying 80% of compensation. Though petitioner filed reply affidavit on 19.12.2007 asserting that he is still in possession of Acs.1.40, no evidence is placed before this Court. This Court heard the mater on 14.12.2007 and on 23.1.2008. Having felt that perusal of original record of acquisition is necessary, this court directed learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to place record before this Court. Original land acquisition file in Rc.No.783/94-I from the office of Sub-Collector, Tenali, is placed before this Court. This Court has perused the original. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tenali, sent a proposal to District Collector, Guntur, for acquiring land admeasuring Acs.4.47 in survey Nos.1004 and 1020/1 for acquiring the land for provision of house sites to weaker sections belonging to SC, ST, BC and OCs. The proposal was accepted and notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act was issued on 02.4.1996 dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of LA Act. However in the enquiry a tenant (not petitioner) and Executive Officer gave statements. They stated that they have no objection if compensation is paid. It is only thereafter declaration under Section 6 of LA Act was published on 28.1.1997 followed by notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of LA Act on 04.1.1997. These notices were displayed at the offices of MRO, Mandal Development Officer (MDO), Station House Officer (SHO), P.S.Bapatla, and Bapatla Municipality. The file also contains possession certificate under which Executive Officer of the Temple – fourth respondent herein; handed over possession to Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI), after accepting a sum of Rs.1,59,795/- towards 80% of compensation on primary valuation amount as per the proceedings of RDO, Tenali, in D.O.Rc.No.783/96 SW, dated 06.3.1997. In view of this clinching evidence, contention of petitioner that due process was not followed and attempt was made to dispossess him cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel for petitioner, however, contends that when land acquisition proceedings were initiated in April 1996, there was no necessity for the Commissioner to issue notice under Section 80(1)(b) of Endowments Act dated 05.3.1999. Though this submission appears to be attractive, the same does not advance the case of petitioner any further. It appears when Revenue Department approached the Temple, they sought permission of Commissioner to alienate the land otherwise than by public auction or land acquisition proceedings. Therefore seeking sanction of such proposal, a communication was sent. Then came the notice under Section 80(1)(b) of Endowments Act but no order of Commissioner has been placed before this court whereunder the Commissioner accorded sanction for sale of land otherwise than by auction. A reading of Section 80(1)(b) of Endowments Act would show that after receiving any proposal for alienation of land, Commissioner as a first step has to invite objections and suggestions from all persons interested. It is only after receiving such objections, Commissioner can accord sanction if he considers that it is prudent and necessary to the benefit of the institution. No such sanction is given by the Commissioner. Therefore in view of the acquisition proceedings initiated by District Collector, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition especially when Commissioner ultimately did not accord sanction for sale of the land and the land was acquired under the provisions of LA Act. The decision of Supreme Court in A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu v State of A.P.[1] was brought to the notice of this Court. The Supreme Court therein laid down that unless and until a proper scheme is made by the Government for payment of salaries to Archakas rendering service in religious institutions, such Archakas are entitled to retain the land, if they are in possession of the land belonging to religious institution. The right of Archakas to retain the land belonging to the Temple is a limited right and the same does not divest the State from exercising its power of eminent domain. Therefore the remedy of petitioner is to approach Land Acquisition Officer – if the Award is not passed – and seek apportionment of compensation, if law permits such entitlement to petitioner. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) January 25, 2008 YS [1] (1997)5 SCC 376 = AIR 1997 SC 3702