Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1375 (AP)

S. Sriranga Nayakulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-27

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. Writ Petition No.21021 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 1srt respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.394, dated 18.04.2017 cancelling the registered Sale Deed dated 11.11.1999 vide document No. 5250 of 1999 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar's Office, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District relating to the property of 160 Sq.yds in Door No.28-1-33, Devi Chowk, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and without authority consequently directing the respondents to drop further proceedings in this regard including dispossession of the petitioner from the said site and pass such other and further orders”. Writ Petition No.24498 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner for the property bearing Door No.28-1-33 in an extent of 166 Sq.yds, 13th Ward, Devi Chowk, Rajahmundry, E.G.District in O.A.No.256 of 2014 (Old O.A.No.53 of 2002 on the file of 4th respondent) on the file of A.P.State Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad having collected the total consideration as fixed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings dated 21.04.2005 and 26.04.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice consequently directing the respondents to issue NOC for said property or register the ratification deed ratifying the Sale Deed No. 5250/1999, dated 11.11.1999 and pass such other and further orders”. 2. Since the issue involved in the Writ Petitions are one and the same and also parties and subject property involved in the writ petitions are one and the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of them through this Common Order. 3. Heard Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent. 4. The precise case of the petitioner is that he has been possession and enjoyment of the property bearing D.No.28-1-33 in an extent of 166 Sq.yds, 13th Ward, Devi Chowk, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District since more than three decades. T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent. 4. The precise case of the petitioner is that he has been possession and enjoyment of the property bearing D.No.28-1-33 in an extent of 166 Sq.yds, 13th Ward, Devi Chowk, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District since more than three decades. Initially as a lessee of the 6th respondent, who sold the same to the petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.11.1999. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 21.04.2005 after considering the factual aspects and the report of the 5th respondent directed the 6th respondent to enter into compromise with the petitioner and collect an amount of Rs. 4,08,000/- in addition to the amount already paid fixing the value at Rs. 3800 per square yard and permitted to withdraw the O.A.No.53 of 2002 and issue NOC for relinquishing the right of the temple over the said site. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has paid balance amount with the 6th respondent with due acknowledgement dated 26.04.2005. To his utter dismay has received a notice dated 20.07.2014 after elapse of one decade from the date of orders of respondents 2 and 6 from learned Tribunal to appear in O.A, which was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the subject property, thereby questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.24498 of 2014 and obtained stay of all further proceedings in O.A. Later, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 16.02.2017 on the order passed by the Commissioner dated 21.04.2005. The counsel for the petitioner represented and placed all relevant records and submitted that settled rights cannot be unsettled and the proposed examination on the orders of the Commissioner after elapse of 12 years is not permissible and requested to drop the proceedings. The 1st respondent without considering the said fact has issued G.O.Rt.No.394, dated 18.04.2017 cancelling the registered document No.5250 of 1999, dated 11.11.1999 executed in favour of the petitioner by the 6th respondent, which was ratified by the 2nd respondent observing that there is no necessity to enter into compromise and the report of the 5th respondent dated 26.07.2004 would show that the property will fetch more than Rs. 5,000/- per square yard. Pursuant to the said order, the 6th respondent by its letter dated 02.06.2017 informed that to pay purchase money. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.04.2017 is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. 5,000/- per square yard. Pursuant to the said order, the 6th respondent by its letter dated 02.06.2017 informed that to pay purchase money. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.04.2017 is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. The 1st respondent has no authority to cancel the registered document. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petitions and requested to allow the same. 5. Per contra, 6th respondent filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the sale deed dated 11.11.1999 executed by the then Trustee is nonest in the eye of law for the reason that the permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad as required under Section 80 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ( in short ‘the Endowments Act”) has not been obtained. The Ex-Chairman of the 6th respondent has filed W.P.No.24321 of 2001 challenging the illegal sale transaction, alleging that the then Inspector, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry in collusion with the then Founder Trustee has sold the subject property belonging to the temple to the petitioner. The said writ petition is being pending. The petitioner herein is the 5th respondent therein, which fact is suppressed. During pendency of the said wridt petition, the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide proceedings dated 21.04.2005 has regularized the illegal sale transaction and directed the founder trustee to enter into compromise under Section 89(2) with the petitioner and sell the land to the petitioner, which is contrary to the statutory provisions i.e Section 80(1)(c) Proviso-1, which reads as follows: “Provided that the Government may, in the interest of the institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded therefore in writing, permit the sale of such immovable property, otherwise than by public auction”. 6. Therefore, the regularization orders of the Commissioner is nonest in the eye of law as the same were passed without jurisdiction and powers vested in him. Further contended that when the illegal sale transaction made by the founder trustee is the subject matter of W.P.No.24321 of 2001, the Commissioner of Endowments has no authority to enter into a compromise and grant regularization. Further contended that when the illegal sale transaction made by the founder trustee is the subject matter of W.P.No.24321 of 2001, the Commissioner of Endowments has no authority to enter into a compromise and grant regularization. After hearing both the parties on 16.02.2007 the Government has passed a cogent order dated 18.04.2017 wherein the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments dated 21.04.2005 were set aside and even the illegal sale deed registered by the then trustee on 11.11.1999 vide document No.5250/99 were also cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and that requested to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the record. 8. It is a fact that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from the 6th respondent under a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.11.1999. Subsequently it was ratified by the 2nd respondent observing that there is no necessity to enter into compromise and the report of the 5th respondent dated 26.07.2004 reveals that the property will fetch more than Rs. 5,000/- per sq.yd and informed to collect the purchase money by exercising the powers under Section 89(2) of the Endowments Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has also paid the balance amount of Rs. 4,08,000/- to the 6th respondent vide proceedings No.1/2005, dated 26.04.2005 under due acknowledgement by relinquishing the right of the temple over the subject land. Therefore, petitioner has purchased the property under valid sale consideration and that he is a boanfide purchaser for value and duly ratified by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the respondent/temple cannot say at this juncture that the sale transaction done by the single founder trustee is not valid. Further, the Commissioner of Endowments has no authority to cancel the sale deed by passing impugned order, which is contrary to the statutory provisions of the Endowments Act. 9. Therefore, the respondent/temple cannot say at this juncture that the sale transaction done by the single founder trustee is not valid. Further, the Commissioner of Endowments has no authority to cancel the sale deed by passing impugned order, which is contrary to the statutory provisions of the Endowments Act. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in “Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P., Hyderabad and Others v. Sri Swamy Ayyappa Co-operative Housing Societies Limited”, 2003(6) ALT 72, wherein it was held that the mere fact that the authorities failed to act in the matter to get the institution registered under the provisions of the Act is of no legal consequence and the transaction of alienations without prior sanction of the Commissioner or the Government, as the case may be, confers no right, title or interest over such property in any person and it shall be deemed to be the property of the institution and the person in possession of such property shall be deemed to be an encroacher. 10. Assuming for a moment, in the instant case the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value and that he is not an encroacher. If the petitioner is an encroacher, definitely the above decision would apply. Further, the 1st respondent has no authority to issue impugned proceedings dated 18.04.2017 cancelling the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1999 after elapse of several years is bad in law. It is glaring fact that the 1st respondent has not followed due procedure while issuing impugned order and same is declaring as illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of both the counsel, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petitions, while directing the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate or register the ratification deed ratifying the sale deed dated 11.11.1999 for the subject property in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 12. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are allowed, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.394, dated 18.04.2017. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.