Allowed

G. Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2021WP/10386/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions challenging the proposed alienation of temple land. The court held the sale to the SC Corporation illegal for lacking prior Commissioner sanction and not being for the temple's benefit, setting aside the transaction.

What did the court decide?

Sale of temple land to SC Corporation set aside; direction to respondent to auction leasehold rights per 2003 Rules and refund advance only after auction land delivery.

G. Srinivasulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

¶3

W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶4

W.P.No.10386 of 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

G. Srinivasulu, S/o. Chinna Venkata Ramana,

¶7

Archaka, Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple,

¶8

R/o. Ganjigaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Gollapudi, Krishna District.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶14

The Executive Officer, The Group of Temples, Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram District, office at Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶15

The Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶16

The District Collector, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Revenue Division, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Talupula, Ananthapuram District.

¶19

Smt. C. Adilakshmamma, W/o. C. Narayanana, R/o. 7-2, Boyapalli Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶20

Smt. B. Lakshmidevi, W/o. Bonala Venkataramana, R/o. Boyapalli Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶21

Baigolla Narayanamma, W/o. B. Ganganna, R/o. 8-80, Kotta Poolavandlapalli, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 14-09-2021

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶25

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers May be allowed to see the judgments?

¶26

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals:

¶27

Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy Of the Judgment?

¶28

: Yes/No

¶29

: Yes/No

¶30

: Yes/No

¶31

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶32

¶33

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶34

*** HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO**

¶35

+ W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶36

Date: 14-09-2021

¶37

W.P.No.10386 of 2021

¶38

Between:

¶39

G. Srinivasulu, S/o. Chinna Venkata Ramana, Archaka, Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple, R/o. Ganjigaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

¶40

… Petitioner

¶41

AND

¶42

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶43

The Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Gollapudi, Krishna District.

¶44

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,

¶45

Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶46

The Executive Officer, The Group of Temples, Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapuram District, office at Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶47

The Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶48

The District Collector, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶49

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Revenue Division, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.

¶50

The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Talupula, Ananthapuram District.

¶51

Smt. C. Adilakshmamma, W/o. C. Narayanana, R/o. 7-2, Boyapalli Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶52

Smt. B. Lakshmidevi, W/o. Bonala Venkataramana, R/o. Boyapalli Village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶53

Baigolla Narayanamma, W/o. B. Ganganna, R/o. 8-80, Kotta Poolavandlapalli, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶54

... Respondents

¶55

! Counsel for petitioners : Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Endowments ^Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri G. Ramana Rao, Standing Counsel ^Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri Ch.C. Satyanarayana

¶56

^Counsel for Respondents 6 to 8 : G.P. for Revenue

¶57

HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred:

¶58

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶59

¶60

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶61

W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶62

ORDER:

¶63

These two writ petitions are being filed by the same writ petitioner and relating to the issue of alienation of the land belonging to the temple, known as Sri Obeleswara Swamy Konda, Ganjivaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶64

The petitioner is a devotee and Archaka of the deity in Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple situated at Ganjivaripalli, H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District. This temple is the owner of Ac.88.45 cents of agricultural lands in Sy.No.901 of Vapamanipeta Revenue Village, Talupula Mandal. About Ac.22.45 cents of this land was given to the family of the petitioner for their livelihood for performing Archakatvam in the said temple. The leasehold rights of the remaining Ac.66.00 cents were being auctioned by the Executive Officer of the said temple. However, the petitioner came to know, a year back, that the said Ac.66.00 cents of land is being sold to the SC Corporation for distribution of the land among the weaker sections of the society. On account of the objections raised by the devotees and villagers, these proposals were not moved forward. However, when some persons claiming to be the beneficiaries of such a scheme, sought to trespass into the land, the petitioner and other villagers had made enquiries. It is stated that in the course of these enquiries, the petitioner came to know that it was proposed to sell the land of the temple to the SC Corporation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre and 80% of the amount had already been received by the temple and only remaining 20% balance amount has to

¶65

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶66

¶67

be received by the temple. It appears that the Executive Officer of the temple had written a letter dated 27.12.2020 to the SC Corporation requesting for payment of the remaining 20% balance amount after which the possession of the land would be delivered. Apart from this, the Executive Officer also addressed a letter to the Station House Officer of Talupula Police Station for necessary police protection. Subsequently, the District Collector, Ananthapur, addressed a letter dated 07.01.2021 to the Executive Director of the SC Corporation to take necessary steps to obtain a Government Order for registration of the temple land in favour of the beneficiaries.

¶68

At that stage, the Executive Officer of the temple had published a notice dated 10.02.2021 proposing to hold a public auction of the leasehold rights of the land on 22.02.2021. As this auction had not been held, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.10386 of 2021. The relief sought in this writ petition is for a declaration that the proposed sale of land is illegal and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and to pass such consequential orders, as may be necessary.

¶69

On 23.06.2021, this Court had granted an interim direction restraining transfer of the land to any person or Corporation including the 5^th respondent for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the interim direction was extended till further orders.

¶70

The writ petitioner had again filed W.P.No.14389 of 2021 for a direction to the authorities to conduct auction of the leasehold rights over the said land.

¶71

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶72

¶73

After notice, the 4^th respondent, who is the Executive Officer of the temple, had filed a counter affidavit.

¶74

The 5^th respondent, though represented by an advocate, has not chosen to file any counter affidavit in the present matters, despite various opportunities being given to the 5^th Respondent.

¶75

While the matters were pending before this Court, I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed by the petitioners therein for impleading them as respondents 9 to 11. The proposed implead petitioners had also filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 for vacating the interim direction granted on 23.06.2021.

¶76

The case of the implead petitioners, who have been impleaded today by way of a separate order, is that they along with other women belonging to the depressed classes in the District had sought allotment of land. Basing on their request, the SC Corporation and the endowments department had entered into an agreement for sale of Ac.66.00 cents of land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre in the year 1995 itself. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.7,92,000/- was paid by the SC Corporation to the endowments department towards 80% of the sale consideration of the land and the remaining 20% was to be paid after registration of the land in favour of the beneficiaries. It is further stated that the 3^rd respondent, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ananthapur, had handed over the possession of the land to the SC Corporation, who had, in turn, allotted the land to 45 beneficiaries identified through a lottery system and these beneficiaries including the implead petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. It is also admitted that the implead petitioners could not obtain

¶77

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶78

¶79

passbooks even though their names were recorded in the revenue records.

¶80

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that an agreement set out by the implead petitioners had been arrived at. Various details of the communications between the authorities in relation to these transactions have been stated in the counter affidavit and are not being recorded in the present order as it would suffice to mention that there was a proposal for alienation of the land culminating in submission of proposals under Section 80(1) of the Act for sale of the land. However, the sale transaction was not finalised on account of lack of Government Orders in respect of a sale by way of private negotiations in favour of the 5^th respondent. The 4^th respondent has taken the specific plea that even though 80% of the sale amount had been paid, the land had not been distributed to the beneficiaries, as permission for sale from the Government had not yet been received and the remaining 20% of sale consideration has not been received.

¶81

Heard Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent and Sri Ch. C. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent-SC Corporation, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 6 to 8 and Ambati Srikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioners.

¶82

The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the Act, which governs the management and alienation of the properties of Hindu

¶83

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶84

¶85

Religious Institutions and Endowments including temples. The provisions relating to alienation of immoveable property of such temples is set out in Chapter-X of the Act. Section 80, which is relevant, reads as follows:

¶86

80. Alienation of immovable property. - (1) (a) 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 prior sanction of the Commissioner.

¶87

(b) The Commissioner, may after publishing in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette the particulars relating to the proposed transaction and inviting any objections and suggestions, with the respect thereto and considering all objections and suggestions if any received from the trustee or other person having interest, accord such sanction where he considers that the transaction is-

¶88

(i) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment:

¶89

(ii) in respect of immovable property which is uneconomical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and

¶90

(iii) the consideration therefor is adequate and proper.

¶91

(c) Every sale of any such immovable property sanctioned by the Commissioner under clause (b) shall be effected by tender-cum-publication in the prescribed manner subject to the confirmation by Commissioner within a period prescribed;

¶92

Provided that the Government may, in the interest of the institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded therefor in writing, permit the sale of such immovable property, otherwise than by public auction; Provided further that the Government may purchase the lands situated in Scheduled Areas belonging to institutions or endowments, wherever necessary, otherwise than by

¶93

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶94

¶95

public auction and assign such lands to the members of the Scheduled Tribes.

¶96

The language of the above provision is clear and unambiguous. An analysis of the same would show:

¶97

A) The immoveable property belonging to an institution or endowment, including Temples, cannot be alienated either by way of gift, sale, exchange or mortgage.

¶98

B) However, if such necessity arises, such property can be alienated after obtaining the ‘Prior’ sanction of the Commissioner. Since the word ‘ Prior’’ is used, this sanction has to be taken before any step, for alienation, including any agreement or understanding, binding the institution, is arrived at.

¶99

C) The Commissioner, upon any such request, for prior sanction, being made, will not only publish the details of the proposed transaction in the Official Gazette, but also invite objections to the said proposal from the Trustees of the Institution and any “ Person having Interest ’’ by giving adequate publicity to the said proposal. The term “Person having Interest’’ is being defined in section 2 (18) of the Act.

¶100

D) The Commissioner will then consider all the objections filed by the Trustees and the persons having interest and take a decision granting or refusing such sanction.

¶101

E) The consideration of the Commissioner for deciding such proposals for alienation of immoveable property shall be guided solely by the three following factors and no other factor:

¶102

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶103

¶104

(i) Whether such alienation is necessary or beneficial for the temple; or

¶105

(ii) Whether it is uneconomical to the temple to own and maintain such immoveable property;

¶106

(iii) If the consideration paid for such alienation is adequate and proper in the event of either of the earlier requirements being met.

¶107

F) In the event of sanction being granted and the said alienation is by way of sale, the same shall be done only by way of tender cum publication.

¶108

G) Any such sale shall be completed only after obtaining the confirmation of the Commissioner.

¶109

H) The requirement that all sales have to be by way of public auction can be waived only in two circumstances.

¶110

(i) Where, the Government, for reasons recorded in writing, stating that, it is in the interest and benefit of the Institution, permits the sale of the immoveable property other than by way of public auction; or

¶111

(ii) Where the land situated in scheduled areas is purchased by the Government itself for the purpose of assigning the said lands to the members of the Schedule Tribes.

¶112

Any alienation of the immoveable property of an institution

¶113

is invalid and void unless, the above conditions are complied with. As held above, the fundamental and primary conditions for a valid alienation of the immoveable property of an institution under this Act is the requirement that it is necessary and beneficial for such an institution or

¶114

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶115

¶116

that the institution finds it uneconomical to own and maintain the said property. The immoveable property belonging to an institution or endowment cannot be alienated because the Commissioner of Endowments or the Government of the day deems it appropriate to alienate the said property for reasons other than those stipulated in Section 80 of the Act.

¶117

In the present case, the proposal to sell the land is not on account of any benefit accruing to the temple or on account of the land being uneconomical for the temple to own and maintain. It is for the purpose of distribution of the land to various beneficiaries. Such a purpose is not for the benefit of the institution. In the circumstances, there can be no question of sale of the land in favour of the 5^th Respondent corporation or any of the beneficiaries either by way of private negotiations or public auction.

¶118

A further issue that arises in the present case is that of the pendency of W.P.No.11812 of 2005 and the directions of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. dated 22.11.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005. The Division Bench was pleased to direct that no sale of endowment land shall be affected without the permission of the Court pending further orders, in the said writ petition. The said writ petition is still pending before the Court. In the said circumstances, there can be no sale of the land of the temple to any person or organisation, without approaching the Court for such permission. No such proceedings have been pleaded or placed before this Court.

¶119

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶120

¶121

The implead petitioners, who are some of the beneficiaries, claim that they are in possession of the land, while the 4^th respondent states that the land has not been distributed among the beneficiaries and that no cultivation is being carried on in the said land, and none of the beneficiaries are in possession of the land. This Court is not going into this issue of disputed fact, as any such distribution, even if it has taken place, is a distribution of land, which does not belong to the 5^th RespondentCorporation, which is clearly illegal, and cannot confer any rights on either the SC Corporation or any of the said beneficiaries. In the alternative, even the 4^th Respondent, in the absence of the prior sanction of the Commissioner Endowments and the waiver of the requirement of public auction by the Government, could not have alienated or handed over possession of the land either to the 5^th respondent or the beneficiaries.

¶122

As it has already been held that the alleged beneficiaries could not have been put in possession of the land, it would always be open to the 4^th respondent to initiate action for eviction of the said beneficiaries in the event of such beneficiaries being in possession of the land. At the same time, the fact that these persons are members of the weaker sections of the society cannot be lost sight of. It would be necessary for the 5^th Respondent to take steps to ensure that these beneficiaries are compensated by allotment of alternative land which can be acquired by the 5^th respondent, elsewhere, either by way of private purchase of any other land or by obtaining such land from the Government.

¶123

These writ petitions are allowed, declaring that the proposed alienation of the land admeasuring Ac.66.00 cents of land belonging to Sri Obeleswara Swamy Temple situated in Survey No.901 of Ganjivaripalli,

¶124

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶125

¶126

H/o. Vepamanipeta, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District, to the 5^th respondent SC Corporation, is violative of the provisions of Section 80 of the Endowment Act, 1987 and is set aside with a further direction to the 4^th respondent to take steps for auctioning the leasehold rights of the said land in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural lands Rules, 2003. The initial funds obtained from such an auction shall be used to refund the advance amounts paid by the 5^th respondent-Corporation only after the 4^th Respondent is able to hand over the said land to the successful bidder in such auction.

¶127

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶128

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶129

14^th September, 2021 Js

¶130

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶131

¶132

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶133

W.P.Nos.10386 & 14389 of 2021

¶134

14^th September, 2021

¶135

G. Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Srinivasulu v. 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

Gantasala Sowdamani Vs Sai Krishna Kumari

Gantasala Tirupathamma, Vs G. Sreenu Kumar

Gangisetty Venkateshwarlu Vs Mr. Adi Sheshu Naidu

M Sri Lakshmi Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Boreddy Eswara Reddy Vs Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy Devastanam

J Janardhana Rao Vs G Ramana Rao