ORDER : The respondents 4 to 17 had claimed title and possession over various plots of land located in “MVN Layout” in Sy.No.275/D1 (Sy.No.275P) of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The entire land in the said survey number was claimed by the 3rd respondent-temple on the basis of the proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act as well as G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 20.06.2000. In view of long pending litigation, the Government had enquired into the matter and had come up with G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 for regularisation of the ownership over the plots which were being claimed by both the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam as well as the persons in occupation of the said plots. This government order permitted the Devasthanam to regularise the ownership and possession of the persons over the lands, which were in their possession, on payment of consideration in accordance with the stipulations set out in the Government Order. (It appears that some of the respondents 4 to 17 were not the persons, in favour of whom land regularisation certificates were issued by the 3rd respondent, and they are claiming through the persons who had received such certificates. These claims are on the basis of the said respondents being the legal heirs of the persons who had been granted these land regularisation certificates or the persons who had otherwise obtained title over the plots from the persons who had been granted regularisation certificates. For ease of convenience it is being recorded that it is respondents 4 to 17 who had obtained the certificates and any reference in the order shall be treated as reference to the predecessors of these respondents also. 2. The plots owned by these respondents were regularised by the 3rd respondent, who issued regularisation certificates to all these persons. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 17 had made a request to the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent for shifting of their plots into one contiguous bit owned by the temple, in exchange for taking over the plots regularised in favour of the respondents 4 to 17. This request was forwarded by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner forwarded the request to the 1st respondent, who issued Memo No.368766/Endts.II (1)/2016, dated 22.02.2017 permitting the Executive Officer to exchange 2919.20 sq. yards of the 3rd respondent-temple with various bits of regularised land admeasuring 2928.77 sq. yards of land . This request was forwarded by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner forwarded the request to the 1st respondent, who issued Memo No.368766/Endts.II (1)/2016, dated 22.02.2017 permitting the Executive Officer to exchange 2919.20 sq. yards of the 3rd respondent-temple with various bits of regularised land admeasuring 2928.77 sq. yards of land . The land given to respondents 4 to 17 is said to be in “B block” along with roads on four sides. 3. In pursuance of this Memo, the 3rd respondent and the respondents 4 to 17 executed a deed of exchange on 31.12.2019, which was registered as document No.3645 of 2019 in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam. The respondents 4 to 17 thereupon, obtained building permission on 07.10.2021 from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and sought to commence construction of a building in this land. 4. At that stage, the petitioner, who claims ownership and possession over 300 sq yards of land in Plot No.B-7 of MVN Layout, approached this Court with the complaint that her plot of land was made part of the land handed over by the 3rd respondent-temple to respondents 4 to 17 and the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of various provisions of law. 5. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows: a) The transaction between the 3rd respondent-temple and respondents 4 to 17 was an “exchange of land” and the same was in violation of Section 80 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Endowments Act’). He submits that Section 80 requires permission to be granted by way of a Government Order and not by way of a Memo. b) The procedure set out under Section 80(1)(b) of the Act requiring invitation of suggestions and consideration of such objections, was not done. c) The consent under Section 80 has to be given by the Commissioner of Endowments and the Government has no role in the matter. d) The Government Business Rules, which differentiated between a Government Order and a Memo, require such decisions to be issued by way of a Government Order and not by way of a Memo and accordingly the said Memo is not in accordance with the requirements of the Business Rules. d) The Government Business Rules, which differentiated between a Government Order and a Memo, require such decisions to be issued by way of a Government Order and not by way of a Memo and accordingly the said Memo is not in accordance with the requirements of the Business Rules. e) Section 2(8) of the A.P. Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 2016 defines development, to include exchange of plots or amalgamation of plots of land and the same can be done only after appropriate permission is granted by the Commissioner under Section 82 of the said Act. In the present case, no such permission was obtained. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their counter affidavits. Respondents 4 to 17 have a filed separate counter affidavit. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has no right or title over the aforesaid 300 sq. yards of land claimed by her. She submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), by issue of a Ryotwari patta in favour of the 3rd respondent, in proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act, in No. A.I.A. No. 1/96, dated 18.05.1996 and 2/96, dated 14.08.1996, had confirmed the ownership and title of the 3rd respondent over the entire area of land in Survey No. 275 of Adavivaram village. The Government had affirmed the same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.406 dated 20.06.2000, recognising the right and title of the 3rd respondent. She submits that the petitioner does not have any right or title over the land and as such the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. She raised the above submission on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any application for regularisation of her land under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments would also submit that even if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted, the provision of law that would be applicable would be Section 75 of the Endowments Act and not Section 80, as the lands in question are Inam lands. 9. She further submits that the transaction in question is not a transaction of exchange. 9. She further submits that the transaction in question is not a transaction of exchange. She contends that the shifting of plots of respondents 4 to 17 into one contiguous bit was part of the regularisation process under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 and as such the provisions of Section 80 would not be applicable to the present case. 10. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-temple reiterates the contentions of the learned Government Pleader and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and that in any event the transaction under challenge is not a transaction of exchange but it is only a part of the regularisation process initiated under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000. 11. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 17, would reiterate the contention that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as the petitioner has no right or title over any part of the aforesaid 300 sq. yards of land. He would further contend that the contention of the petitioner that shifting of the plots of the petitioner into one contiguous plot would amount to an exchange, is incorrect. He submits that all necessary permissions including the building permissions had been obtained by respondents 4 to 17 before commencing any construction and in any event, the land of the petitioner does not fall within the contiguous plots which have now been handed over to respondents 4 to 17. Sri Ashwani Kumar relies upon paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to contend that the petitioner had not made any application for regularisation of her plot and as such she has no right or title over the land and consequently would not be an aggrieved party. 12. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would point out that the provisions of Section 75 would not be applicable in the present case, as even according to the respondents proceedings had culminated in the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 18.05.1996 and 14.08.1996, and as a ryotwary patta is said to have been already granted, the question of application of Inam Abolition Act or treating the land as Inam land would not arise. He relies upon a Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the case of Nellore Bujjamma and Anr., vs. The Tahsildar, Rapur and Anr., AIR 1980 AP 118 . Answering the objection relating to the locus of the petitioner, he contends that, even the respondents cannot claim any title over any part of the land in Sy. No. 275P of Adavivaram Village, as the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000, specifically prohibited the regularisation of any land in Adavivaram village and the regularisation of land by the 3rd respondent temple on the basis of the above G.O. is in direct violation of the G.O. itself. Consideration of the Court: 13. In view of the objections raised by the respondent, the maintainability of the writ petition would need to be gone into before the merits of the case can be considered. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has no title to the property being claimed by her and as such cannot be treated as a party aggrieved by the impugned proceedings. She would have no locus standi, to file the present writ petition, in the absence of any violation of her rights. 14. The petitioner claims title over the property by virtue of various transactions under which the property came to her and contends that the Mandal Revenue Officer proceedings dated 18.05.1996 and 14.08.1996, and G.O.Ms.No.406 dated 20.06.2000 would not be binding on her. 15. Without going into the aforesaid issues, this Court, in exercise of its parrens patriae jurisdiction, can always take up this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is because, the property, which is in dispute, even according to the respondents, belongs to the 3rd respondent-temple and this Court under its parrens patriae jurisdiction is duty bound to consider whether alienation of temple property is in accordance with law and for the benefit of the endowment/temple. In the circumstances, this Court, without going into the question of the rights of the petitioner and the locus of the petitioner, deems it appropriate to consider the writ petition on its merits. On the question of the applicability of section 75 of the Act, it must be held that, in view of the law laid down by the full bench of the erstwhile high court of Andhra Pradesh in Nellore Bujjamma and Anr. On the question of the applicability of section 75 of the Act, it must be held that, in view of the law laid down by the full bench of the erstwhile high court of Andhra Pradesh in Nellore Bujjamma and Anr. vs. The Tahsildar, Rapur and Anr., AIR 1980 AP 118 the provisions of section 75 of the Act would not be applicable to the present case. 16. The case of respondents 4 to 17 is that they were in occupation of various plots of land in the layout, known as MVN layout in Sy.No.275/D1 of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and that they had obtained land regularisation certificates issued under G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue (Endts-IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000. The respondents are thereby tracing their title to the land under the regularisation certificates issued in their favour. This stand of theirs is demonstrated by the following extract of the deed of exchange executed between respondents 4 to 17 on one side and the 3rd respondent-temple on the other, on 31.12.2019. “WHEREAS the First Party is the sole and absolute owners of and in possession of the property which is more fully described in the schedule Á’annexed hereto which is acquired by virtue of Land Regularisation Certificates issued in their favour as per G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endts-IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000 for the un-authorised occupation of vacant house sites under different Registered Documents.”” 17. G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000, which framed the scheme for regularisation of encroachments in respect of lands belonging to the 3rd respondent had specifically stipulated in Clause 10(d), which reads as follows: 10(d) – The regularisation of occupations are not to be applied to the occupations on the hill in Adivivaram Village irrespective of the nature of the occupations. The hill should be cleared of all occupations other than those made by the Devasthanam or the Government”, with the approval of the Devasthanam, in order to preserve the sanctity of the Hill.” 18. This would mean that the 3rd respondent-temple could not have regularised the lands in favour of respondents 4 to 17 under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 and as such, the land regularisation certificates are themselves invalid. 19. This would mean that the 3rd respondent-temple could not have regularised the lands in favour of respondents 4 to 17 under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 and as such, the land regularisation certificates are themselves invalid. 19. Sri P. Roy Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, even otherwise, the exchange of property, under Memo No.368766/Endts.II(1)/2016 dated 22.02.2017, which is impugned before this Court along with of the deed of exchange dated 31.12.2019, is violative of Section 80 of the Endowments Act, which reads as follows: 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 therefor 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: Provided further that the Government may purchase the lands situated in Scheduled Areas belonging to institutions or endowments, wherever necessary, otherwise than by public auction and assign such lands to the members of the Scheduled Tribes.” 20. The respondents contend that this provision is not applicable to the facts of the case as the impugned Memo and deed of exchange were only part of the regularisation provided under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000. 21. This contention would have to fail on various grounds. The respondents contend that this provision is not applicable to the facts of the case as the impugned Memo and deed of exchange were only part of the regularisation provided under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000. 21. This contention would have to fail on various grounds. G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 provides for regularisation of land, which is in unauthorised occupation of third parties. This would mean that regularisation of land under G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 would be available only to the extent of the land which is in actual occupation of the third parties. The said G.O. does not authorise handing over of land which is not in the occupation of third parties. In the present case, the regularisation of land was completed by handing over the land regularisation certificates confirming ownership and title in favour of respondents 4 to 17, over the respective plots, which were in their possession. Nothing more can be done under the said G.O., after the plots had been regularised by way of land regularisation certificates. 22. Apart from this, the impugned deed of exchange, which is signed by respondents 4 to 17, itself states that respondents 4 to 17 had become sole and absolute owners by virtue of the land regularisation certificates issued in their favour earlier. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 17, as owners of these plots of land, had executed a deed of exchange with the third respondent. The terms of the said deed of exchange and the title of the document clearly show that what was contemplated and what was executed was a deed of exchange only. This transaction cannot be treated as a further regularisation of property in favour of respondents 4 to 17. 23. As the transaction is a transaction of exchange, the provisions of Section 80 of the Endowments Act will apply. 24. Under Section 80 of the Endowments Act, any immoveable property belonging to a charitable religious institution or endowment can be exchanged only with the prior sanction of the Commissioner and any exchange done without such prior sanction is null and void. In the present case, respondents 4 to 17 approached the 3rd respondent with the proposal of exchange of land and the same was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the Commissioner Endowments. Thereafter, the Commissioner Endowments forwarded the request of the 3rd respondent for permission to “reorganise” the plots which were previously regularised. In the present case, respondents 4 to 17 approached the 3rd respondent with the proposal of exchange of land and the same was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the Commissioner Endowments. Thereafter, the Commissioner Endowments forwarded the request of the 3rd respondent for permission to “reorganise” the plots which were previously regularised. The Government issued the impugned Memo No.368766/Endts.II(1)/2016, dated 22.02.2017, permitting the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-temple to exchange the LRC bits regularised in favour of respondents 4 to 17 with the land of the 3rd respondent-temple in the neighbouring area. As the permission had been granted by the Government and not the Commissioner, it would have to be held that the exchange conducted through the impugned Memo and the impugned deed of exchange are void. 25. Section 80 of the Endowments Act requires the Commissioner to publish the particulars relating to any proposed transaction, mentioned under Section 80, in the A.P. Gazette and invite objections and suggestions with respect thereto and pass orders only after considering all the objections and suggestions. 26. In the present case, no such exercise has been conducted. The specific allegation in this regard made by the petitioners has not been answered by the respondents by placing the necessary documents before this Court. In the circumstances, it must be held that the permission said to have been given by the Government is clearly violative of Section 80 of the Endowments Act. 27. Section 80 stipulates that permission to carry out any of the transactions, relating to immoveable property, mentioned in Section 80 requires the approving authority to satisfy itself that the transaction is prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution of Endowment, apart from other considerations set out in Section 80 (b) of the Endowments Act. A perusal of the impugned Memo dated 22.02.2017 does not show any such satisfaction being recorded in the Memo. The impugned exchange of property would have to fail on this ground also. 28. There is a mention, in the impugned deed of exchange dated 31.12.2019 that the exchange of land is beneficial to the 3rd respondent in view of the physical conditions existing in that location. Such an observation, in the deed of exchange, would not assist the respondents in any manner. The said satisfaction has to be reflected in the proceedings in which permission for such an exchange is granted. 29. Such an observation, in the deed of exchange, would not assist the respondents in any manner. The said satisfaction has to be reflected in the proceedings in which permission for such an exchange is granted. 29. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner also takes an objection to the issuance of a Memo for granting such permission. He relies upon the Business Rules of the government to contend that permission of this nature cannot be given by way of a Memo and such permission can be given only by way of a Government Order. The said Government Rules stipulate that the Memos are to be issued only for the purpose of furnishing information and decisions of the Government, either under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or under special powers conferred by the Government under various statutes, would have to be issued by way of a Government order only. 30. In the present case, a decision to permit such exchange of property could not have been issued by a Memo. The said permission granted under the impugned Memo would have to fail on this ground also. 31. The impugned deed of exchange was executed on the basis of the permission given by the Government under the impugned Memo. Once the said Memo fails, on various grounds set out above, the consequential deed of exchange would also fail. It is a settled proposition of law that where the foundation falls the super structure would also fall. 32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Memo No.368766/Endts.II(1)/2016, dated 22.02.2017 and the deed of exchange executed in document No.3645/2019 dated 31.12.2019 are set aside and the 3rd respondent shall take all consequential steps in pursuance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.