Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1427 (AP)

Venugopalaswamy Temple v. Katlakonda Gopala Reddy

2003-11-19

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by shri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Thetta, represented by its person-in-management, venugopala Swamy Temple, C/o. Office of the Prasanna Venkataramana Swamy temple, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, the land-lord as against the Order dated 08-07-2002 made in I. A. No. 40 of 2002 in a. T. C. No. 2 of 2002 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special Officer under the A. P. (A. A-) Tenancy Act, 1956, madanapalle, Chittoor District. ( 2 ) THE respondent claiming to be the tenant filed I. A. No. 40 of 2002 in A. T. C. No. 2of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Special Officer under the a. P. (A. A.)Tenancy Act, 1956, Madanapalle, chittoor District under Rule 19 (2) of a. P. Tenancy Rules, 1980 praying for temporary injunction restraining the respondent-temple-revision petitioner herein from interfering with his tenancy rights by way of proposed sale in public auction or otherwise till the disposal of the main tenancy petition. Learned Principal junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special Officer for tenancy, Madanapalle, after recording the reasons in detail, had allowed the said application granting temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, Sree Venugopala swamy Temple (for brevity, the temple ) had preferred the present C. R. P. ( 3 ) SRI R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent who claims that the tenancy is subsisting even as on to-day raised a preliminary objection that this C. R. P. under Article 227 of the constitution of India itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that as against the said order, remedy of appeal is provided forunder section 16 (2} of A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy act, 1956 (for brevity, the Act ). The learned counsel also contended that on being satisfied that the respondent in the revision petition is entitled for temporary injunction, the relief was granted by the Tenancy Tribunal and even in view of the change of law at any rate without following the procedure under the a. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Lease of agricultural Land Rules, 2002, forcible dispossession cannot be resorted to. ( 4 ) SRI K. V. N. Bhupal, learned counsel representing the temple-revision petitioner had submitted that there is no controversy that the subject matter of the dispute is temple land and hence the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are not applicable to such lands. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision in state of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Nallamalli ramireddy and others and had contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex court and also in the light of the rules framed by exercising the powers conferred under section 82 read with 153 of A. P. Charitable hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), this A. T. C. itself is not maintainable and in such a case C. R. P. cannot be thrown out on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under section 16 (2) of the Act which is not applicable at all. ( 5 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 6 ) THERE is no controversy that the temple in question at Thetta Village is registered under A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act and is having vast extent of land. The other factual details which had been narrated by both parties may not be very relevant. It is no doubt true that as against the impugned order, an appeal lies under Section 16 (2) of the Act. But, here is a case where the very Act and the Rules framed thereunder are not applicable in the case of temple lands and in such circumstances in view of the clear legal position, the temple had thought of questioning it by filing C. R. P. under article 227 of the Constitution of India. When it is clear on the admitted facts that a particular legislation itself is not applicable, party cannot be driven to the Appellate Tribunal under the Tenancy Act on the ground that an alternative remedy under Section 16 (2) of the Act is available since the very Act has no application to the temple lands. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in nalamalli Ramireddy s case (1 supra) and certain contentions were advanced placing reliance on the A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land rules, 2002. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in nalamalli Ramireddy s case (1 supra) and certain contentions were advanced placing reliance on the A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land rules, 2002. Inasmuch as the respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of Special Officer-cum-Tenancy tribunal by filing A. T. C. under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and in view of the fact that the said provisions are not applicable to the temple lands, all the other aspects need not be considered at this stage while disposing of the present C. R. P. It is needless to say that the respondent is at liberty to invoke any other remedy available to him under law, but it can be definitely said that the present remedy invoked by him is a misconceived remedy in view of the decision aforesaid rendered by the Apex Court and also in the light of the amending provision under Section 82 (5) of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act of 1987. ( 7 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 08-07-2002 made in I. A. No. 40 of 2002 in A. T. C No. 2 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special officer under the A. P. Tenancy act, 1956, Madanapalle, Chittoor District is set aside. It is also declared that the very institution of the A. T. C. by the respondent is without any authority and jurisdiction and the Special Officer-cum-Tenancy Tribunal in the facts and circumstances should not have entertained the very A. T. C. at all. Hence, the impugned order and also the impugned a. T. C. are hereby quashed giving liberty to the respondent to invoke any other remedy available to him under law. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.