Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 634 (AP)

Vankadari Ramu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-10-01

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2020
JUDGMENT A V Sesha Sai, J. - Heard Sri Prabhala Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Smt.P.Rajani, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, and Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent-temple. 2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the action of 4th respondent in issuing notices, dated 03.07.2020, and final notice, dated 10.09.2020 demanding annual lease amount of Rs.3,00,000/, without handing over the entire leasehold extent of 11,160 sq.ft/1240 sq.yards as approved by the 2nd respondent in R.Dis.No.M1/COE-19024 (32)/5/2018-M SEC-ENDOWMENTS, dated 23.01.2020, as per report of 3rd respondent, dated 11.11.2019, in pursuance of public auction held on 18.02.2020 as illegal arbitrary unjust, enrichment, unconstitutional and amounts to mala fide exercise of power and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India as also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Lease and Licenses Rules, 2003 as amended in 2015 and consequently command the respondents to handover the balance extent of lease land i.e., 7440 Sq ft/826.66 sq.yards forthwith in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case". 3. In response to the public auction notification issued by the Executive Officer of the fourth respondent-temple, petitioner herein participated in the public auction on 18.02.2019 and emerged as a successful bidder. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, vide Lr.No.B2/2172/2019/Adm., dated 11.11.2019, sought approval of the Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool. Vide proceedings in R.Dis.No.M1/COE-19024 (32)/5/2018-M SEC-ENDOWMENTS, dated 23.01.2020, the office of the Commissioner of Endowments accorded approval for the lease in favour of the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, on 18.02.2020, he paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards first year lease amount. On 03.07.2020, the Executive Officer of the temple issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the second year lease amount i.e. for the period from 18.02.2020 to 17.02.2021. On receipt of the said notice, petitioner herein got issued a legal notice, dated 06.07.2020, stating that as against the alleged site of 11,160 sq.ft or 1240 sq.yards the temple authorities handed over only 1240 sq.ft., and called upon the Executive Officer to hand over the entire extent of land. On receipt of the said notice, petitioner herein got issued a legal notice, dated 06.07.2020, stating that as against the alleged site of 11,160 sq.ft or 1240 sq.yards the temple authorities handed over only 1240 sq.ft., and called upon the Executive Officer to hand over the entire extent of land. Responding to the said legal notice, a reply came to be issued by the Executive Officer of the temple stating that the petitioner took possession of the vacant site of 1240 sq.ft. for which the auction was held, as such, the question of handing over of 1240 sq.yds. would not arise. Subsequently, the Executive Officer of the temple issued notices, dated 03.07.2020, 18.02.2020, and eventually on 10.09.2020, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. It is stated in the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2020, that as per the auction papers, the subject property is only an extent of 1240 sq.ft and eventually a demand has been raised by the Executive Officer for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the second year lease amount. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the documents including the public auction notification, dated 05.02.2019, letter of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 11.11.2019, and the approval granted by the Commissioner of Endowments on 23.01.2020 would vividly and manifestly demonstrate that the auctioned property is 11,160 sq.ft or 1240 sq.yds., as such, the version of the Executive Officer in various notices issued by him, including the impugned notice, is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and without handing over the entire extent, as per the above said documents, it is absolutely not open for the Executive Officer to demand the amount as mentioned in the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2020. 6. Strenuously, opposing the Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the present Writ Petition cannot be maintained before this Court in view of various factual controversies and, as per the 'Tom Tom' notice and the auction papers, the subject land is only 1240 sq.ft. but not 1240 sq.yds as alleged by the petitioner. 7. 6. Strenuously, opposing the Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the present Writ Petition cannot be maintained before this Court in view of various factual controversies and, as per the 'Tom Tom' notice and the auction papers, the subject land is only 1240 sq.ft. but not 1240 sq.yds as alleged by the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent-temple and keeping in view the factual controversies referred to supra, this Court deems it appropriate to put a quietus to the issue involved by referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments-third respondent herein to verify the issues raised by the petitioner herein and the fourth respondent and to pass appropriate orders. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is disposed of, keeping it open for the petitioner herein to submit a written representation before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool-third respondent herein, for redressal of his grievance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enclosing all the relevant papers. If any such representation is submitted before the third respondent, the same be verified and appropriate orders be passed/action be taken, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner herein, pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2020. It is also made clear that in the meanwhile petitioner herein shall pay the proportionate admitted amount to the fourth respondent-temple within a period of two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.