Allowed

Bapuram Venkat Reddy, v. The State of Andhra pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2021WP/13104/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three writ petitions regarding auction proceedings. The court set aside the auction of leasehold rights held while a petitioner remained in lawful possession. Consequently, the applicants who paid for these rights were directed to receive refunds.

What did the court decide?

Auction proceedings set aside; direction to refund lease amounts to W.P.No.13104 of 2021 within four weeks; bar on further auctions until lawful eviction.

Bapuram Venkat Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 & 13104 of 2021

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

As these writ petitions relate to the leasehold rights of the same land and arise out of the facts, which are inter-related, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

W.P.No.10173 of 2020 and W.P.No.9688 of 2021 have been filed by the same petitioner. W.P.No.13104 of 2021 has been filed by another set of petitioners.

¶6

W.P.No.10173 of 2020 was filed challenging the conduct of auction dated 08.06.2020 of the leasehold rights of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.4.04 cents in Sy.No.117, Ac.5.86 cents in Sy.No.147 and Ac.18.09 cents in Sy.No.152 of Bapuram Village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the said lands had been given as Inam Lands to the ancestors of the petitioner for rendering certain services to the 4^th respondent-temple. As there was a threat of dispossession, on account of the then Chairman of the Trust Board of the 4^th respondent-temple, O.S.No.121 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner, before the Additional District Munsif Judge, Adoni for permanent injunction against the then Trust Board and some other persons claiming to be the lessees. This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.1988 giving liberty to the authorities to take steps for eviction in accordance with law. This order was affirmed by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Jude, Adoni, vide judgment dated 14.07.1997. The complaint of the petitioner was that even though the petitioner and his family were in possession of

¶7

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

¶8

¶9

the said land and have not been evicted, the Executive Officer of the group of temples, Adoni could not have conducted the auction of the leasehold rights of the said land as the petitioners were in possession and any auction of the leasehold rights of the land cannot fructify into a completed contract, as the successful bidder cannot be put in possession of the land. On 19.06.2020, this Court granted interim stay against the respondents seeking to dispossess the petitioner and the said order was extended from time to time.

¶10

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner in W.P.No.10173 of 2020 had again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.9688 of 2021 on the ground that the Executive Officer of the 4^th respondent-temple had again sought to auction the leasehold rights of the land by way of an auction scheduled to be held on 06.05.2021. In this case, this Court by an order dated 06.05.2021 had granted interim suspension of the proceedings for a period of eight weeks and the said order was extended from time to time.

¶11

W.P.No.13104 of 2021 has been filed by the other set of petitioners for a direction to the respondents to refund of the monies paid by them. It appears that the auction of the leasehold rights of the land conducted on 08.06.2020 resulted in the 1^st petitioner in this writ petition becoming the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.93,500/- for an extent of Ac.5.86 cents in Sy.No.147 and the 2^nd petitioner in this writ petition becoming the highest bidder for an extent of Ac.18.09 cents in Sy.No.152 for a sum of Rs.3,91,000/-. These petitioners had also deposited the above sums on 08.06.2020 itself. However, since they could not be put in possession, the petitioners had sought for refund of the monies paid by them. It is their further contention that respondents 3 to 6 ought to have

¶12

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

¶13

¶14

refunded the amounts paid by them immediately after the order of stay dated 19.06.2020 had been passed by this Court in W.P.No.10173 of 2020 and refusal to repay the amounts is an arbitrary and high-handed action of the respondents.

¶15

The 4^th respondent-temple has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in question was not in possession of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 and accordingly the leasehold rights were auctioned. It is the further case of the respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Manikya Reddy v. The A.P. State Wakf Board¹ had held that the civil Courts would have no jurisdiction in disputes relating to the Endowment property or Wakf property and as such the judgment of the civil Court is irrelevant. It is further submitted that the family members of the petitioner had also participated in the auction process held on 08.06.2020 and the same would demonstrate that the petitioner was not in possession of the land. The further contention of the 4^th respondent-temple is that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 had actually been put in possession of the property and after obtaining the benefit of the land for the lease period, have now turned around and are seeking to obtain refund of the lease amounts on the ground that they were not in possession of the land at all.

¶16

Heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021, Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent-temple.

¶17

1 2011 (1) ALD 61 SC

¶18

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

¶19

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 that he is in possession of the land, which was given as service Inam initially and that he is entitled to continue in possession of the said land, as Section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) stipulates that such Inam lands can be resumed only in the event of the holder of the said lands falling foul of the stipulations in Section 77 of the Act. The petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of the civil Court in O.S.No.121 of 1984 as affirmed by the appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of 1992 wherein a finding had been given that the petitioner is in possession of the land and is entitled to resist any attempt of dispossession attempted in a high-handed manner, while it would be open to the temple authorities to proceed against the petitioner for his eviction from the said land if it is otherwise legally permissible. Even otherwise, the very fact that an appeal has been filed against the order of the trial Court would attest to the factum of possession by the petitioner in W.P.No.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021

¶21

The contention of the 4^th respondent-temple is that the said orders are not binding on the 4^th respondent-temple and in any event, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 was not in possession of the said land. The 4^th respondent has not chosen to produce any document or material to show when and how the petitioner is supposed to have lost possession of the land. In the circumstances, the contention of the 4^th respondent that the petitioner was not in possession of the land when the auction was conducted on 08.06.2020 cannot be accepted. The other contention of the 4^th respondent is that the orders of the civil Court are not binding on the 4^th respondent as the orders were

¶22

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

¶23

¶24

passed without jurisdiction. This issue also does not arise as the petitioner cannot be evicted from the agricultural lands in a high-handed manner and can only be evicted by the 4^th respondent by following due process of law. The 4^th respondent has not produced any document or material to show that the petitioner had been evicted from the possession of the land by such a process of law.

¶25

In these circumstances, conduct of any auction of leasehold rights of the said land, without dispossessing the petitioner in accordance with law, is clearly an exercise in futility.

¶26

The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 is that the petitioners were never put in possession of the lands for which they had paid lease amounts and that they are entitled for refund of the same. The defence of the 4^th respondent is that the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 had been put in possession of the land and cannot seek refund of the lease amounts. The 4^th respondent has failed to produce any material to show that the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021 had been put in possession of the land after being declared as the successful bidders in the auction held on 08.06.2020. Apart from this, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 has categorically asserted his possession over the land and it is stated that even today the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 continues to be in possession of the land.

¶27

In view of the above facts, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the auction proceedings dated 08.06.2020 and 06.05.2021, if it had been held, with a direction to the 4^th respondent to refund the lease amounts paid by the petitioners in W.P.No.13104 of 2021, within a period

¶28

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

¶29

¶30

of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will be open to the 4^th respondent to take such steps as may be advised against the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021. However, the 4^th respondent shall not attempt any further auctions of the leasehold rights of these lands, as long as the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 and 9688 of 2021 remains in possession of the said land. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶33

3^rd September, 2021 Js

¶34

RRR,J. W.P.Nos.10173 of 2020 & batch

¶35

¶36

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶37