Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 237 (AP)

Chinta Ramaiah v. A. P. Endowments Department

2003-02-13

V.V.S.RAO

body2003
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS common order shall dispose of the two writ petitions as they are filed by the same petitioners with reference to the same cause of action. The writ petitions raise an important question as to interpretation of section 80 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ( the Act for brevity) in relation to the power of the Commissioner to accept or refuse sanction for effecting gift, sale, exchange and mortgage of any immovable property of a charitable or religious institution or endowment. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of the two cases in brief are as follows. The third respondent is a registered religious institution which owns an extent of acs. 33,00 in Valivarthipadu village in gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, comprised in Sy. Nos. 175/1 and 176/2. The institution issued an auction notice proposing to sell Acs. 12. 32 cents by tender-cum-auction on 6-10-1985. The auction sale to be conducted is subject to confirmation by the Commissioner of Endowments, the second respondent herein. Be that as it is, the petitioners have deposited an amount of rs. 5,000/- and participated in the auction on 6-10-1999 at the office of the Commissioner. The property admeasuring Acs. 12. 32 cents was divided into three plots. In relation to plot No. VII admeasuring an extent of acs. 2. 88 cents in Sy. No. 176/2, the first petitioner became highest bidder by offering rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. In respect of Plot no. VIII admeasuring Acs. 5. 59 cents in sy. No. 175/1a, the second petitioner became highest bidder offering an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre. As required under the rules, the petitioners deposited 1/3rd of bid amount and obtained receipts. The petitioners did not receive any confirmation or any advice to pay the balance amount. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, having seen two news items on 31-10-1995 and 29-11-1995 to the effect that an extent of Acs. 33. 00 or acs. 35. 00 belonging to the third respondent is being handed over to the Revenue department for the purpose of provision of house-sites to weaker sections, the petitioners filed W. P. No. 27286 of 1995 praying for a declaration that the action of the Executive Officer of the third respondent in handing over possession of the land in an extent of Acs. 8. 8. 87 cents in Sy. Nos. 175/1 and 176/2 (for which the petitioners had bid) as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent No. 5 to hand over possession of the land to the third respondent. A counter-affidavit was filed in the writ petition inter alia stating that the commissioner of Endowments refused to confirm the sale of land belonging to the third respondent by his proceedings dated 22-11-1995. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed another writ petition being w. P. No. 7014 of 1997 praying for a Writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent dated 22-11-1995 as arbitrary and illegal. ( 4 ) THE second respondent has filed acounter-affidavit. In brief, it is the case of the respondents that the land in Sy. Nos. 175/1 and 176/2 were gifted to the temple for performing kainkaryam and that the tenant of the land became defaulter and did not pay the rent. Ultimately, the matter was compromised and as per the orders of the government in G. O. Ms. No. 111, Revenue (Endts.) Department, dated 4-2-1993, the third respondent obtained possession of acs. 35. 69 cents. In view of this, it was decided to sell the land by tender-cum-public auction. Proposals were submitted to the second respondent, who by proceedings dated 26-10-1994, invited objections under section 80 of the Act after duly making paper publication on 20-6-1995. The commissioner accorded permission for selling the land in tender-cum-public auction. Accordingly, the auction was scheduled by issuing a public notice on 14-9-1995. However, due to law and order problem, it was decided to conduct the auction on 6-10-1995 at the office of the second respondent. ( 5 ) AFTER conducting auction, proposals were submitted to the second respondent for confirming the auction which was held. The second respondent obtained market value of the lands from the District Collector and by proceedings dated 22-11-1995, refused to confirm the sale purporting to exercise powers under Section 80 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the A. P. Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Alienation of Immovable property Rules, 1987 ( the Rules ) promulgated vice G. O. Ms. No. 644, Revenue (Endts. I) Department, dated 30-6-1989. No. 644, Revenue (Endts. I) Department, dated 30-6-1989. ( 6 ) SRI T. Veerabhadrayya, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the second respondent has not applied his mind before refusing to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioners. He submits that being the statutory authority, the Commissioner is required to consider the proposals submitted by the temple for confirmation in accordance with the statute and pass appropriate orders. The District Collector addressed the Commissioner on 20-11-1995 and without making any independent enquiry as to the correct market value the commissioner passed orders on 22-11-1995. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the exercise of power under section 80 of the Act is vitiated. He also placed reliance on the judgment of a Full bench in Employees Association v. Sri Chenna keshava Swamy Temple. ( 7 ) LEARNED Govt. Pleader for Endowments and learned Standing Counsel for the temple, opposing the writ petitions, submit that as per the provisions of Sec. 80 of the Act, the Commissioner is required to keep in mind the interest of the temple and it is competent for the Commissioner to refuse to confirm the sale if the sale consideration is unreasonable. According to the learned counsel, sale consideration offered by the petitioners, be at rs. 1,20,000/- or Rs. 1,30,000/- is not reasonable having regard to the prevailing-market value in the locality. ( 8 ) UNDER Section 14 of the Act, all the properties belonging to, or endowed to a charitable or religious institution vest in the charitable or religious institution or endowment. The Commissioner is appointed under Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of exercising his powers and performing the functions conferred and entrusted to him under the Act and to administer the law keeping in view the interest of the temple. The property absolutely vests in the temple and Board of trustees is appointed to manage the temple. The powers of the Board of Trustees under section 23 are subject to such lawful directions which the competent authority may issue. Further, the Board of Trustees is required to discharge their powers within the provisions of the Act in the best interests of the temple. The powers of the Board of Trustees under section 23 are subject to such lawful directions which the competent authority may issue. Further, the Board of Trustees is required to discharge their powers within the provisions of the Act in the best interests of the temple. It is for this reason that in the matter of alienation of immovable property, be it by way of gift, sale, exchange, mortgage or any other mode of transfer, the law imposes stringent requirement before taking action for disposal of the property belonging to a religious institution. Section 80, relevant for the purpose, reads as under. Sec. 80. Alienation of immovable property, (1) (A) Any gift, sale, exchange or mortgage of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be null and void unless any such transaction, not being a gift, is effected with the prior sanction of the Commissioner. (B) The Commissioner, may after publishing in the Andhra Pradesh gazette the particulars relating to the proposed transaction and inviting any objections and suggestions with respect thereto and considering all objections and suggestions, if any received from the trustee or other person having interest, accord such sanction where he considers that the transaction is - (I) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment; (II) in respect of immovable property which is uneconomical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and (III) the consideration therefore is adequate and proper. (C) Every sale of any such immovable property sanctioned by the commissioner under clause (b) shall be effected by tender-cum-public auction in the prescribed manner subject to the confirmation by the Commissioner within a period prescribed, provided that the Government may, in the interest of the institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded therefor in writing, permit the sale of such immovable property, otherwise than by public auction; ( 9 ) THE immovable property belonging to a temple, if it is to be disposed of, is required to be disposed of by conducting public auction. Before putting the property for public auction, the sanction by the commissioner is a condition precedent. That is the effect of sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, which lays down that no sale can be effected without the prior sanction of the commissioner. Before putting the property for public auction, the sanction by the commissioner is a condition precedent. That is the effect of sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, which lays down that no sale can be effected without the prior sanction of the commissioner. That is not the end of it. After conducting auction, as per Rule 14 of the Rules, the sale cannot be concluded unless the Commissioner confirms the auction sale. The power inheres in the commissioner either to confirm or refuse the sale when a proposal is submitted to him. As per Section 80 (l) (b), when a proposal is submitted by a religious institution proposing to sell the immovable property, the Commissioner is required to accord his sanction keeping in view three conditions. These are - (i) that the sale proposed is prudent and necessary or beneficial to the religious institution; (ii) that the management of immovable property by the temple is uneconomical; and (iii) the consideration for the sale proposed is adequate and proper. A plain reading of the said Section would show that the commissioner is required to take these factors into consideration while according sanction for selling the temple property by public auction. While confirming or refusing the sale, whether the Commissioner is required to keep these factors in mind? ( 10 ) SECTION 80 of the Act does not, however, specifically require the confirmation of sale of immovable property by a temple after tender-cum-public auction is conducted. But, having regard to the language used in Section 80 (l) (a) and (b), it is clear that under Section 80 (1) (a), the sale conducted by the temple pursuant to a sanction accorded by the Commissioner is again subject to confirmation by the commissioner. Be it noted, Section 80 (l) (a) lays down that no sale can be "effected without prior sanction of the commissioner". The term effect has a broader meaning than permission. Though the provision only speaks of according sanction, the same principles would apply when the Commissioner considers the proposal for confirming the auction. ( 11 ) UNDER Section 80 (l) (c), every sales anctioned by the Commissioner under clause (b) shall be effected by a tender-cum-public auction in the prescribed manner. The delegated legislation has prescribed the rules vide G. O. Ms. No. 644, dated 30-6-1989 dealing with the sale of immovable property of a religious institution. ( 11 ) UNDER Section 80 (l) (c), every sales anctioned by the Commissioner under clause (b) shall be effected by a tender-cum-public auction in the prescribed manner. The delegated legislation has prescribed the rules vide G. O. Ms. No. 644, dated 30-6-1989 dealing with the sale of immovable property of a religious institution. Besides laying down the procedure to conduct public auction, in Rule 14 of the Rules, it is laid down that the Commissioner, within three months from the date of the sale, shall either confirm or refuse to confirm the sale. When, at the second stage of the confirmation, the commissioner considers the matter, he is required to keep in mind the same principles as contained in Section 80 (l) (b ). Merely because tender-cum-auction sale of temple property was sanctioned earlier, it does not mean that the Commissioner should automatically confirm the sale by accepting the highest bid. ( 12 ) IT is not denied before me that after the proposals were submitted to the commissioner, there were discussions between the District Collector, Krishna district and the Commissioner. Apropos the said discussion, the Collector addressed the commissioner on 20-11-1995 inter alia informing that the local market value for the lands which were auctioned is about rs. 2,00,000/- per acre and that the Revenue department is willing to pay the market value of Rs. 2,00,000/- if the committee fixes the same price as per G. O. Ms. No. 456, revenue (Endts. II) Department, dated 29-9-1995. When the Commissioner passed orders, it will be an important factor which he could not have ignored. Be it noted that it is competent for the Commissioner to refuse confirmation if the sale consideration is inadequate or unreasonable. It is needless to point out that a higher sale price would always subserve the interest of the temple than a lower price. This is the only factor which weighed with the Commissioner in refusing confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioners. The consideration by the commissioner is well in accordance with the provisions of Section 80 of the Act and rule 14 of the Rules and no exception can be taken to the same. This is the only factor which weighed with the Commissioner in refusing confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioners. The consideration by the commissioner is well in accordance with the provisions of Section 80 of the Act and rule 14 of the Rules and no exception can be taken to the same. ( 13 ) LASTLY it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadryya that if the price variation is only the consideration as between the price offered by the District collector and the auction purchasers, his clients are willing to raise the bid to rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, he prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to confirm the sale. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submission. Since the revenue Department proposed to take over the land for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections, this Court cannot compel the authorities to sell the land to the petitioners. Indeed, even after confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioners, nothing prevents the Revenue department to acquire the land from the petitioners or for that matter from the temple. When the District Collector offered rs. 2,00,000/- per acre and proposed to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would be improper for this Court to issue a mandamus to the Commissioner of endowments to confirm the sale by accepting the price of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre ignoring the State s power of eminent domain to acquire the land. As between a public purpose and a private purpose, and as between public interest and private interest, the Court should always prefer public purpose and public interest and sustain it. ( 14 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.