Dismissed

Dammalapati Varamma v. Deputy Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2021CRP/190/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the Endowments Tribunal's order impleading the Deputy Commissioner as an applicant. The Court held that while the Deputy Commissioner is the proper party under Section 85, his prior opinion does not bind the Tribunal nor create bias, especially when the officer has been transferred, and fresh action may be required.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions Nos.190, 209, 326 and 683 of 2020 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Dammalapati Varamma Vs Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.190, 209, 326 and 683 of 2020

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

As the issues raised in these Civil Revision Petitions relate to the same question of law and against the same respondents, all the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

The 2^nd respondent herein had initiated action against the petitioners in the civil revision petitions under Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987. The applications were moved under Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987 on the ground that the encroachments made by the petitioners were group encroachments.

¶5

These applications filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur had been allowed. Aggrieved by the said orders of eviction, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.11799 of 2009 and batch. The learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by an order, dated 07.02.2014, set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that no service of notice on the petitioners. Writ Appeals bearing No.327 of 2014 and batch were filed against the said orders of the learned single Judge. Thereupon, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by disposing of the said writ appeals by an order, dated 19.03.2014.

¶6

¶7

One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein was that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments does not have power to entertain and decide the proceedings as an Endowment Tribunal had been established under the Endowments Act, 1987. This contention was accepted by the Division Bench and the matters were remanded back with a direction to transfer the proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner to the Endowments Tribunal for a decision on the merits of the cases.

¶8

After the said O.A.No.547 of 2014 and batch had been transferred to the Endowments Tribunal, applications were filed for impleading the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur as the first applicant in the said O.As filed against the petitioners.

¶9

These applications were allowed by the Endowments Tribunal permitting the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, to be impleaded as the first applicant. Thereafter, the petitioners herein moved I.As to reopen the earlier orders and the said I.A.No.287 of 2019 in I.A.No.403 of 2017 in O.A.No.549 of 2014, I.A.No.286 of 2019 in I.A.No.405 of 2017 in O.A.No.548 of 2014, I.A.No.276 of 2019 in I.A.No.972 of 2016 in O.A.No.547 of 2014 and I.A.No.288 of 2019 in I.A.No.404 of 2017 in O.A.No.830 of 2014 were dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶10

¶11

Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present set of revision petitions.

¶12

The contention of Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in these revision petitions is that the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, who had earlier passed orders of eviction against the petitioners cannot be permitted to be impleaded as an applicant on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner having already made up his mind cannot be permitted to come in as an applicant in the case.

¶13

Sri Y.Koteswara Rao further contends that the ground given for impleading the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur is that there is an amendment to the provisions of the Endowment Act, 1987 and the Tribunal Rules, which requires the Deputy Commissioner to be shown as the first applicant and the said ground is not available in the present case. He contends that the requirements under Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987 require that the Deputy Commissioner be shown as an applicant. However, since the application had already been filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the present application cannot be treated as an application being filed by the Deputy Commissioner. In those circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner cannot be brought in as an applicant in the case.

¶14

¶15

Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents herein submits that impleading the Deputy Commissioner as the first applicant does not in any manner affect any of the rights available to the petitioners. He submits that any opinion that may have been formed by the Deputy Commissioner is irrelevant on two grounds. Firstly, the incumbent against whom bias is alleged has been transferred and there is another incumbent. Secondly, the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner is not binding on the Endowments Tribunal for a decision to be given in favour of the respondents, merely because one of the applicants is the Deputy Commissioner.

¶16

Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987 has amended on 03.01.2008 stipulates that an application under Section 85 can be filed by the Deputy Commissioner of the area where he knows reason that there is a group encroachment with Endowments property. The Endowment Tribunal rules the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010 legally to conduct of cases before the Endowments Tribunal. Rules 2(2) again (ii) stipulates that in any application filed before the Tribunal has to be the Deputy Commissioner when an application is filed under Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987.

¶17

These two provisions clearly mandate that the only person, who can file an application under Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987 before the Tribunal would the Deputy Commissioner of

¶18

¶19

the area. In such circumstances, the absence of the Deputy Commissioner as an applicant in the O.As., would be fatal to the said applications. In such a situation, the respondents would be entitled to bring on record the Deputy Commissioner as an applicant.

¶20

However, the question that would still remain is whether such a cause of action is open in the peculiar circumstances of the present case.

¶21

The contention of the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner had been formed an opinion cannot be permitted to be an applicant and secondly, the filing of the application before the Deputy Commissioner, it is shows that the necessary requirements of Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987 would not be available.

¶22

As far as the first contention is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur is not an authority and it is the Endowments Tribunal which shall decide on the merits of the case. In such a situation, the opinion of the applicant would definitely bind on the Endowments Tribunal and any apprehension of bias or predetermination cannot be present. It is true that Section 85 of the Endowments Act requires an opinion to be formed by the Deputy Commissioner regarding group encroachments before the applications can be moved under Section 85 of the Endowments Act, 1987. However, this

¶23

¶24

would mean that existing applications before the Deputy Commissioner have to be thrown out and fresh applications would have to be initiated action by the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the peculiar facts of the present case, the spirit of the provisions would have to be taken into account and the very fact that the Deputy Commissioner is being accepted as an applicant, for the Deputy Commissioner to state whether there has reason to believe or needs that there has been a group encroachment on Endowments land.

¶25

In the circumstances, I do not find any merits in the revision petitions and these Civil Revision Petitions, accordingly, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

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

¶27

_________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date : 15.12.2021

SPP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.190, 209, 326 and 683 of 2020

¶33

Date : 15.12.2021

¶34

SPP

Dammalapati Varamma v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dammalapati Varamma v. Deputy Commissioner

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

R.Durga Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kora Veera Venkata Satya Annapurneswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the Secretary

Gurram Jamalamma Vs Chepuri Srinivasa Rao

Yeddula Peddi Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Katikala Sysabu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

T Venkateswara Rao Vs Chulukoti Vijayalakshmi