Disposed

Putti Anjaneyulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2020WP/10744/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the erection of a caution board and proposed auction of leasehold rights by a temple trust over lands in possession of petitioners. Court noted agreement between counsel to follow statutory eviction process, held auction premature, and directed trust not to interfere with petitioners' possession.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.5 not to conduct auction or interfere with petitioner's possession; relief subject to lawful eviction following due process under the Endowments Act, 1951.

Putti Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.10744 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in erecting the caution board on 10.06.2020 in petitioners’ wet lands that “the wet lands in extent of Ac.3-56 cents in R.S.No.537/1, in an extent of Ac.11-44 cents in R.S.No.538/1 and in an extent of Ac.5-68 cents in R.S.No.538/2 belongs to Pedakaragraharam Sri Someswara Swamy Temple” by not allowing the petitioners into their respective lands, as illegal, irregular, unjust, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, contra to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu, Religions Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 and in violation of articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands.

¶4

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents under registered document No.46/1992, dated 06.01.1992 from Rashida Begum, Ac.0-75 cents under registered document No.1645 of 1999, dated 30.06.1999 from Samiunnisa Begum and her family members. He further purchased an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in R.S.No.537/1, under a registered document No.2244 of 1999, dated 16.08.1999 from Rahimunnisa Begum.

¶5

¶6

Similarly, petitioner No.2’s husband purchased agricultural land in an extent of 0-50 cents in R.S.No.537/1 under registered document No.1947 of 1992, dated 06.01.1992 from Jihada Begum, after death of petitioner No.2’s husband, the land devolved upon petitioner No.2 and she has been in continuous possession enjoyment of the same.

¶7

Petitioner No.3 allegedly purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2-68 cents in R.S.No.538/2 under registered document No.18-12-60, dated 06.05.1960 from Jaldu Annantha Raghu Rama Rao.

¶8

Petitioner No.4 purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in R.S.No.538/2 under registered document No.2727 of 1996, dated 21.08.1996 from Veerla Seetha Ravamma.

¶9

Petitioner No.5 purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in R.S.No.538/1 under document No.3527 of 1977, dated 21.10.1977 from Kotti Rama Koti Veera Vara Prasad Rao and his family members.

¶10

Petitioner No.6 purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1-54 cents and Ac.0-56 cents in R.S.No.538/1 under registered document No.2694 of 1997, dated 20.10.1997, Ac.1-00 cents of land in R.S.No.538/1 under registered document No.1715 of 1999, dated 05.07.1999 from Kotti Rama Koti Veera Vara Prasad Rao and his family members.

¶11

Petitioner No.7 purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1-66 cents and Ac.0-44 cents in R.S.No.538/1 under document No.2693 of 1997, dated 20.10.1997 from Kotti Rama Koti Veera Vara Prasad Rao and others.

¶12

¶13

The petitioners have been raising paddy crops in the subject lands since the date of their purchase and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective property in question. The petitioners’ names were entered in the revenue records and obtained pattedar passbooks from competent authority. Thus, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. But, respondent No.5 suddenly erected a notice board on 10.06.2020 claiming that the land in an extent of Ac.3-56 cents in R.S.No.537/1, Ac.11-44 cents in R.S.No.538/1 and Ac.5-68 cents in R.S.No.538/2 belongs to respondent No.5 – Temple and proposed to conduct auction of lease hold rights. Public notice was issued in the newspaper on 11.06.2020 fixing the date for conducting auction without evicting the petitioners, who are in possession of the property. The petitioners are claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, whereas respondent No.5 is also claiming title to the property in question and proposed to auction lease hold rights.

¶14

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the contentions submitted that the proposed auction without evicting the petitioners, who are in possession of the property in question, is illegal and requested to issue a direction as claimed, whereas Sri K.Madhav Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments readily agreed to follow due process contemplated under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’), to evict the encroachers from the land belonging to respondent No.5-Temple.

¶15

In view of the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, this Court is not required to decide the

¶16

¶17

title to the property since such question can be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Hence, leaving it open to respondent No.5 to take appropriate steps to evict the petitioners, if they are encroachers of the endowments’ land and follow the procedure. Till then respondent No.5 is not entitled to conduct auction of the lease hold rights and that respondent No.5 is directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the property in question till they are evicted by following due process of law.

¶18

These observations will have no bearing on decision to be taken by the Tribunal and the title of the parties to the petition is not adverted to by this Court.

¶19

Hence, recording the submission of Sri K. Madhav Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the above directions, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶22

Date : 13.07.2020 IKN

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.10744 of 2020

¶26

Date : 13.07.2020

¶27

IKN

Putti Anjaneyulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putti Anjaneyulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gullapalli Sarada Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Paila Kithayya Vs the Government Opf Ap

Uppuganti Jayarama Nageswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Tummala Sujatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

challa nagamalleswara rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jalli Penchalamma Vs The State of AndhraPradesh