Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1001 (AP)

Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-07-06

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
ORDER : 1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “......to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction as it may deem fit and necessary, declaring the inaction and refusal of the respondents in implementing the agreement of exchange of land vide G.O.Ms.No. 10 Revenue (Endts-II) Department dated 08.01.2021 and consequently direct the respondents herein to handover the land admeasuring Ac.1.19 cents presently with R&B Department forming part of Sy.No. 64/1 of Mantralayam village, Kurnool District in exchange of the land admeasuring Ac.1.55 cents forming part of Sy.No. 11/3 of Mantralayam village, Kurnool District......” 2........ (a) The Manager of the Petitioner-Mutt deposed to the affidavit. Averments, in brief, in the affidavit are that Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mantralayam is the institution propagating Dwaita Philosophy to its disciples all over the country as ordained by the Gurus of the Mutt. The Mutt exists since 352 years. The Mutt is located in the local limits of the Mantralayam village, Kurnool District. The Mutt has got innumerable number of devotees all over the world and as such influx of the devotees visiting the Mantralayam to have the “Moola Brindavana” darshan of Sri Raghavendra Swamy is increased and runs in lakhs. Since visiting of disciples to the Mutt has been increased considerably, the Mutt authorities are finding it difficult to provide rooms, guest houses to accommodate them. In order to provide facilities, the Mutt authorities identified the land in S.No. 64/1 of an extent of Ac.1.19 cents, very nearer to the Mutt, over which a guest house for tourists constructed by the department of Roads & Buildings (R&B) department exists. In fact, the land identified by the Mutt, originally belonged to the Mutt. (b) His Holiness, the Peetadhipathi of the Mutt after due deliberations, has directed the Mutt authorities to make an application for exchange of the land of the Mutt in S.No. 11/3 admeasuring Ac.1.55 cents with that of land in S.No. 64/1 admeasuring Ac.1.19 cents. Pursuant to the orders of his Holiness Sri Swamji, the Manager of the Mutt addressed letter dated 10.10.2019 to the Chief Engineer, R&B Department seeking exchange of land. The Superintending Engineer, R&B and the Executive Engineer (FAC), R&B, came to Mantralayam on 10.12.2019 and inspected the proposed site and inturn, addressed letter to the Chief Engineer, R&B appraising all facts. Pursuant to the orders of his Holiness Sri Swamji, the Manager of the Mutt addressed letter dated 10.10.2019 to the Chief Engineer, R&B Department seeking exchange of land. The Superintending Engineer, R&B and the Executive Engineer (FAC), R&B, came to Mantralayam on 10.12.2019 and inspected the proposed site and inturn, addressed letter to the Chief Engineer, R&B appraising all facts. The authorities also found that the land of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents in S.No. 11/3 is feasible for them to construct the guest house for tourists. (c) The Superintending Engineer (FAC) R&B Circle, Kurnool requested the Chief Engineer (R&B), Vijayawada to get necessary orders from the Government to handover the existing inspection bungalow to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mantralayam and to take possession of alternative land proposed for allotment by the Mutt to the control of R&B Department. The Government after careful examination of the matter, agreed to the proposal of the Special Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada for exchange of R&B land in S.No. 64/1 of an extent of Ac.1.19 cents with the land in S.No. 11/3 of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents belonged to the Mutt, subject to getting “relaxation orders from the High Court” and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No. 10, Revenue (Endts.II) Department dated 08.01.2021. The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P. Vijayawada directed the petitioner Mutt to file an application before the High Court, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 10 dated 08.01.2021, seeking relaxation to get exchange of the Mutt land with R&B land vide letter dated 04.02.2021. In fact, Commissioner, Endowments issued memo dated 09.03.2021 regarding exchanges etc. (d) Petitioner filed I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 11812 of 2005. As per the averments in Paragraph-11 of the affidavit, the I.A. came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 02.02.2023 and it was verbally observed that W.P.No. 11812 of 2005 relates to temple lands only, whereas the land involved in G.O.Ms.No. 10 dated 08.01.2021 belongs to Mutt and hence, I.A. cannot be entertained. The Manager of petitioner Mutt addressed letter dated 02.02.2023 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department by marking copy to 1st respondent. A reminder dated 16.02.2023 was addressed to the 3rd respondent. Another reminder dated 02.03.2023 was sent to the 3rd respondent by marking copy to 1st respondent. Another reminder dated 10.03.2023 was sent to the 3rd respondent by marking copy to 1st respondent. Complaining the inaction, the present writ petition was filed. 3. A reminder dated 16.02.2023 was addressed to the 3rd respondent. Another reminder dated 02.03.2023 was sent to the 3rd respondent by marking copy to 1st respondent. Another reminder dated 10.03.2023 was sent to the 3rd respondent by marking copy to 1st respondent. Complaining the inaction, the present writ petition was filed. 3. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is in not implementing the agreement of exchange of land as per G.O.Ms.No. 10, Revenue (Endts.II) Department dated 08.01.2021. The matter was listed on 02.05.2023, 13.06.2023 and 19.06.2023. At request of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, the matter was listed on 26.06.2023. 4. Heard Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned senior counsel representing Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 3 and 4. 5. No counter was filed by the Endowments Department, however, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, advanced arguments. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land sought to be exchanged belongs to the Mutt and not Endowment land. He would submit that the Endowment Department has no control over the properties of Mutt and hence the rider in G.O.Ms.10 dated 08.01.2021 issued by 1st respondent is of no consequence. He would also submit that I.A. was moved before the Division Bench in the pending writ petition, however the Division Bench orally observed that no permission is required to the land belonged to Mutt and writ petition pending relates to the lands of Endowment Department. The learned senior counsel would further submit that though the relief sought for in the writ petition is to implement the G.O.Ms.No. 10 dated 08.01.2021, the Court can mould the relief in the circumstances of the case and declare that no permission is required in respect of Mutt lands. He would also submit that the Commissioner, endowment is the competent person to accord permission and in fact, the Commissioner, Endowment granted permission and hence, no further orders are required from the Government in relation to exchange of land. 7. He would also submit that the Commissioner, endowment is the competent person to accord permission and in fact, the Commissioner, Endowment granted permission and hence, no further orders are required from the Government in relation to exchange of land. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that I.A. filed by the petitioner is pending before Division Bench in W.P.No. 11812 of 2005 and the prayer sought for in the I.A. before the Division Bench is to permit the Mutt to exchange the land of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents in S.No. 11/3 of Mantralayam village with that of the land possession by Department of R&B in an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in S.No. 64/1. She would submit that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A., the deponent therein disclosed the relevant facts including the G.O.Ms.No. 10 dated 08.01.2021 and the Commissioner’s instructions to the petitioner to make an application before the Division Bench. She would also submit that as per Section 2 (23) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) (Act 30 of 1987), “Religious Institution” means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes a Brindavan, Samadhi or any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose. Section 80 of the Act deals with alienation of immovable property including exchange. She would also submit that Chapter-V of the Act deals with Maths and specific endowments attached thereto and certain sections of Chapter-III do not apply to the Mutt, however, the other sections would apply. She would finally submit that since I.As are pending before the Division Bench, the present writ petition seeking the relief is not maintainable. 8. There is no dispute, as per pleadings, the land in an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in S.No. 64/1 belonged to R&B Department and a guest house exists in the said land. The Manager of the Mutt addressed letter dated 10.10.2019 to the 2nd respondent requesting land on exchange basis. The Superintending Engineer submitted report to 2nd respondent. After series of correspondence between the authorities and Mutt, the Manager of the Mutt addressed letter dated 13.12.2019 intimating the 2nd respondent that the Mutt authorities provisionally allot site of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents in S.No. 11/3 in exchange of Ac.1.19 cents in S.No. 64/1. The Superintending Engineer submitted report to 2nd respondent. After series of correspondence between the authorities and Mutt, the Manager of the Mutt addressed letter dated 13.12.2019 intimating the 2nd respondent that the Mutt authorities provisionally allot site of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents in S.No. 11/3 in exchange of Ac.1.19 cents in S.No. 64/1. The said letter would indicate that consent on the proposed site will be confirmed after obtaining permission from the Commissioner, Endowments, A.P, as required under Section 80(1)(a) of the Act. 9. The Manager of the Mutt addressed letter dated 30.05.2020 to the Commissioner of Endowments. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide Rc.No. B1/1750/2020/Adm.,/dated 13.06.2020. A perusal of the said letter would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner requested the Commissioner to take necessary action for exchange of R&B land in S.No. 64/1 of an extent of Ac.1.19 cents belongs to R&B department located in prime area in Mantralayam with the land in S.No. 11/3 of an extent of Ac.1.55 cents belongs to the Mutt, subject to obtaining relaxation orders from the High Court. The Additional Commissioner vide Memo No. M1/REV01-ENDW/113/2020- ENDT-II, dated 20.02.2020 instructed to file an application before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking relaxation to get exchange of temple land with that of R&B land. Pursuant to the said memo, it seems, I.A. was filed on behalf of Mutt, before the High Court as stated supra. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that learned senior counsel would submit that the Division Bench orally observed that the writ petition pending before the High Court relates to the lands of Endowments and nothing to do with the Mutt land. Of course, such an averment was made in the affidavit also. However, the observation made during the course of hearing is not conclusive and binding on the parties. 11. Learned senior counsel by placing reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Ahobila Mutt Parampara Adheena vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, MANU/AP/1918/2022 would contend that since the land belongs to the Mutt, the Endowments department has no control over the land. In this connection, it is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner itself moved I.A. before the Division Bench of this Court and sought for permission. In this connection, it is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner itself moved I.A. before the Division Bench of this Court and sought for permission. G.O.Ms.No. 10 dated 08.01.2021 issued by 1st respondent contained clause that the petitioner had to get permission from the High Court in the pending writ petition. It is not the case of petitioner, as per the averments in the affidavit, that the Government has no power to issue such G.O. and there is no need to get permission to exchange the land from Commissioner, Endowments. 12. Apart from that the clause in the G.O. that Mutt has to get permission from the High Court is not under challenge before this court. In fact, as observed supra, writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to enforce/implement the G.O. 13. As observed supra, the observations made during the course of hearing are not conclusive, unless an order is passed by this Court. Hence, this Court cannot place reliance upon the observations said to have been made by the Division Bench of during the course of hearing. I.As, filed on behalf of Mutt, are pending before the Division Bench. In the opinion of this Court the writ petition seeking relief more or less similar to I.A. before the Division Bench, is not maintainable. The contention of learned senior counsel that property belongs to the Mutt and hence, the permission of Endowments department is not required needs to be dealt with by the Division Bench in the pending I.As. 14. Section 80 of the Act deals with alienation of immovable property. As per Section 80 (1) (a) of the Act, 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. Thus, a perusal of the Section 80 (1) (a) would indicate that permission of the Commissioner is sine qua non. 15. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Memo No. Rev-01/Endw/29/2020 dated 13.01.2020. The said memo was issued basing on the interim orders passed by the High Court in WPMP No. 15505 of 2005 in W.P.No. 11812 of 2005 and WPMP No. 13204 of 2006 in W.P.No. 10547 of 2006. 15. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Memo No. Rev-01/Endw/29/2020 dated 13.01.2020. The said memo was issued basing on the interim orders passed by the High Court in WPMP No. 15505 of 2005 in W.P.No. 11812 of 2005 and WPMP No. 13204 of 2006 in W.P.No. 10547 of 2006. As per the guidelines, the authority proposing to exchange the land has to file an application before the High Court and get the necessary relaxation orders to facilitate the exchange. G.O.Ms.No. 10 dated 08.01.2021 was issued in consonance with the said guidelines. Unless, the Division Bench grants relaxation, such an exercise is not permissible. The letters said to have been addressed by the petitioner after the alleged observation of the Division Bench, in the opinion of this Court, will not enure to the benefit of the Mutt. 16. In view of discussion made supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court makes it clear that this Court has not dealt with the issue as to whether Endowment Department had any control over Mutt lands. The said issue do not fall for consideration before this Court. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.