Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 331 (TS)

Gopal Krishna Ekambe v. Commissioner of Endowment

2022-04-29

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Kotha Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Questioning the action of the respondents in not responding to the petitioner’s representation dated 11.03.2022 and not delivering the possession of the property bearing municipal No. 4-6-90/10/A/5 on Plot No. 12, admeasuring 303 sq. yards, in Survey Nos. 72 to 77, situated at Tejaswi Nagar of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the petitioner in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 dated 01.02.2022, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in spite of the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 dated 01.02.2022, whereby, the order dated 09.06.2020 in O.A. No. 616 of 2011 on the file of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, has been set aside, the official respondents are not implementing the same. The learned counsel has stated that during pendency of C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020, the official respondents have taken possession of the subject premises based on the order dated 09.06.2020 passed in O.A. No. 616 of 2011, which has already been set aside by this Court. That the judgment dated 01.02.2022 in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 has become final, as, no SLP has been filed either by the Endowments Department or by the respondent No. 3 Temple till date. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has stated that the order dated 09.06.2020 in O.A. No. 616 of 2011 is passed against one Gundlapally Chandrasekhar, whereas, the C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner herein and has stated that the judgment dated 01.02.2022 in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 is not binding on the official respondents, as, the orders in O.A. are passed against Gundlapally Chandrasekhar, from whom, the authorities have taken the possession of the subject premises and not from the petitioner herein. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the various sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner by his vendors and also the link documents to show that the said Chandrasekhar had purchased the property through a registered sale deed 24.02.2000 and the said Chandrasekhar in turn has sold the same to one Manjula, who in turn, has sold it to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 08.06.2020. The learned counsel has stated that as the said Chandrasekhar has alienated the subject property in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 before this Court against the order in O.A. No. 616 of 2011 dated 09.06.2020 and the respondents herein are parties to the said CMA and therefore, the authorities concerned cannot state that the judgment in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 dated 01.02.2022 is not binding on them, more so, when they are parties to the said proceedings, therefore, prayed this Court to pass necessary orders in favour of the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the record shows that initially, O.A. No. 616 of 2011 was filed against one Gundlapally Chandrasekhar by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, and Sri Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Temple, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, in respect of the subject property. The said O.A. No. 616 of 2011 was allowed in favour of the applicants vide order dated 09.06.2020. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner herein vide C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 and this Court vide judgment dated 01.02.2022 has allowed the CMA by setting aside the order dated 09.06.2020 passed in O.A. No. 616 of 2011 by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are parties to the said proceedings. Admittedly, till date, the official respondents have not taken steps to challenge the order passed in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020. Pending adjudication of C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020, the official respondents vide panchanama dated 23.12.2020 have taken possession of the subject premises. The series of documents right from 04.10.1995 shows that the subject premises has changed hands from various persons and finally, as on date, the petitioner is the owner of the said subject premises with built up area of 5200 sq. feet. by virtue of a registered Sale Deed. The series of documents right from 04.10.1995 shows that the subject premises has changed hands from various persons and finally, as on date, the petitioner is the owner of the said subject premises with built up area of 5200 sq. feet. by virtue of a registered Sale Deed. The order in O.A. No. 616 of 2011 has been set aside at the instance of the petitioner herein. 7. Having regard to the fact that till date, the official respondents have not challenged the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. No. 500 of 2020 dated 01.02.2020, which has become final, the official respondents are bound to put back the petitioner in possession of the subject premises as the very basis for taking the possession of the subject premises i.e. the order passed in O.A. No. 616 of 2011 dated 09.06.2020 has been set aside and is no longer in subsistence. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the official respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the subject premises within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.