Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 324 (AP)

Pogadadanda Ravi Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-02-06

V.SUJATHA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quash the impugned Order dtd. 16/3/2017 in Appeal Petition No.8 of 2015 passed by the District Registrar and Appellate Authority, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 6th respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the 8th respondent herein to admit/register the Sale Deed dtd. 4/6/2008, and deliver the same to the petitioners herein...". 2. The brief facts of the case are that the managing trustee of Sri Punugu Ramalingeswara Swamy temple, applied to the Commissioner i.e., 2nd respondent herein, seeking permission to sell away the agricultural lands of Ac.3-38 cents in Sy.No.159/1 of Pandellapalli Village, Pandellapalli Gram Panchayat, Chirala Sub Division, Prakasam District, in tender-cum public auction under Sec. 80(1)(a) of the "Andhra Pradesh Charitable, Hindu Religious and Endowments Act (Act No.30 of 1987). Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein, issued proceedings in Rc.No.M2/1283/2002 dtd. 17/6/2002, according permission to the Single Trustee of the subject temple to sell the land in tender-cum-Public Auction held on 19-07- 2002. 3. In the said public auction, Mr. Kola Ramaiah, who was the brother of the petitioner's mother stood as the highest bidder and thereafter, he submitted an application to the 5th respondent herein, requesting to register the Sale Deed in favour of his sister i.e., petitoner's mother late Pogadadona Chandrakanthamma. The 5th respondent herein, later on requested the 2nd respondent to grant permission to register the same in favour of the petitioner's mother. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, through his proceedings in Rc.No.M2/28344/2002 dtd. 3/10/2002, granted permission to register the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner's mother i.e., P. Chandrakanthamma. Pursuant to that the registered Sale Deed was executed by the Single Trustee of the subject temple on 4/6/2008 in favour of the petitioner's mother. 4. But, however, the said Sale Deed was given pending registration number as P-29/2008 dtd. 4/6/2008 by the 7th respondent herein and thereafter the 7th respondent also issued "Intimation of refusal" dtd. Pursuant to that the registered Sale Deed was executed by the Single Trustee of the subject temple on 4/6/2008 in favour of the petitioner's mother. 4. But, however, the said Sale Deed was given pending registration number as P-29/2008 dtd. 4/6/2008 by the 7th respondent herein and thereafter the 7th respondent also issued "Intimation of refusal" dtd. 16/11/2015, to the petitioner's mother which was further filed in the Statutory Appeal under Sec. 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, challenging which the present writ petition is filed on the grounds that the 6th respondent herein, has no authority to address a letter dtd. 13/12/2016 to the 5th respondent herein without giving any opportunity to the petitioners' herein. 5. The only ground on which the 7th respondent has refused to register the document is that "though the Single Trustee is competent to register the Sale Deed, but it is an order passed in the year 2002 and hence the single trustee has not obtained permission from the Commissioner, Endowments Department, AP Hyderabad, to register the land in question". 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that once the 2nd respondent i.e., the Commissioner, Endowments Department has already given permission to the single trustee of the said land to sell the land in tender-cum-public auction vide proceedings dtd. 3/10/2002. The question of further obtaining fresh permission once again for the registration of the Sale Deed does not arise and the registering authority has no review powers and he cannot sit in appeal suo-moto against the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments Department. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings of the Commissioner i.e., 2nd respondent dtd. 17/6/2002 while granting permission under Sec. 80 (1)(a) of the Act 30 of 1987, have stated as under: "In the above circumstances, permission is hereby accorded U/s. 80(1)(a) of the Act 30/87 to the Single Trustee, Vetapalem (M), Prakasham Dist., to sell the land in question in tender-cum-public auction after following the rules in force." 8. 17/6/2002 while granting permission under Sec. 80 (1)(a) of the Act 30 of 1987, have stated as under: "In the above circumstances, permission is hereby accorded U/s. 80(1)(a) of the Act 30/87 to the Single Trustee, Vetapalem (M), Prakasham Dist., to sell the land in question in tender-cum-public auction after following the rules in force." 8. In spite of the said orders passed by the Commissioner, the 7th respondent herein, instead of registering the document presented by the petitioner's mother, has kept the document pending for registration for want of following clarifications from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Ongole, which are admittedly without any jurisdiction: "I) Whether the request of the Assistant commissioner, Endowments, Ongole, to register the Sale Deed in favour of PogadadandaChadnrakantham instead of Kola ramaiah was accepted or not? II)The Survey No.159/1 adopted by Single Trustee is correct or not? III)Whether the single trustee Sri Punugu Ramalingeswara Swamy Devasthanam is competent authority to execute the sale deed or not?" 9. It is a clear case that when the 2nd respondent has already accorded permission for the single trustee to sell the land in tender-cum-public auction and in pursuance of which Mr. Kola Ramaiah, stood as the highest bidder and is none other than the brother of the petitioner's mother and the fact that thereafter, on an application made by Mr. Kola Ramaiah, the 5th respondent and the 2nd respondent has accorded permission to register the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner's mother. As such, the 7th respondent does not have any jurisdiction to further seek clarification whether the single trustee of the said Devasthanam is the competent authority to execute the sale deed or not and keep the document pending for registration. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court feels it appropriate to allow this writ petition by setting aside the original refusal order dtd. 16/11/2015 and the consequential order passed in the Appeal dtd. 16/3/2017 and the 7th respondent is directed to register the subject land basing on the permission granted by the Commissioner i.e, 2nd respondent, vide Rc.No.M2/1283/2002 dtd. 17/6/2002. 11. Accordingly, with the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.