Dismissed

Darru Paaramma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Oct 2021WP/2129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the auction of land held by the 4th respondent. The Court found ownership disputes were matters of fact requiring adjudication by the Endowments Tribunal under the Endowments Act, not by the High Court under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati.

Darru Paaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2129 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The 1^st petitioner claims ownership and title over Ac.2.60; the 2^nd petitioner claims ownership and title over Ac.2.61 cents; and the 3^rd petitioner claims ownership and possession over Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.40/2 of Panukuvalsa Village, Palkonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. The 1^st petitioner claims ownership on the ground that her late husband had been assigned the said land under file No.528/85,A dated 14.12.1985; the 2^nd petitioner claims ownership on the ground that his brother Sri. D.Jesudas, was allotted the said land under file No.528/85, A, dated 14.12.1985; and the 3^rd petitioner claims ownership and possession on the ground that his father Sri D.Surayya was allotted the land under file No.528/85,A, dated 14.12.1985.

¶5

It is case of the petitioners that their names were mutated in Form-1(B) (ROR) and Adangal/Pahani and the Tahsildar had also issued pattadar, pass books and adangal/pahani on 24.01.2021, which shows the petitioners as pattadars. The petitioners further contend that the Executive Officer of 4^th respondent has sent a notice vide letter No.48/2021, dated 20.01.2021 proposing to conduct the public auction of lease hold rights of this land on the ground that the said land belongs to Sri Bevara Venugopala Naidu Annasatram, which is not permissible as the land belongs to the petitioners

¶6

¶7

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The case of the 4^th respondent is that the 4^th respondent which was published under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [for the short “the Endowments Act”] is the owner to an extent of Ac.7.81 cents in Sy.No.40/2 and the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued a pattadar passbook as well as a title deed bearing No.514071 in the name of the 4^th respondentsatram. As far as the claim of the petitioners is concerned, the said claim it said to be based on the proceedings in file No.528/85, dated 14.12.1985, which only give temporary pattas and the said pattas cannot be treated either as ownership document or creating any title in favour of the petitioners. The 4^th respondent would also state that the lease hold rights of this land had been auctioned on 26.03.2015, wherein the 2^nd petitioner had participated in the public auction and had secured lease hold rights of the subject property for the period i.e., 2015-2018 and the 3^rd petitioner had participated in the public auction of the lease hold rights of this land conducted on 28.05.2018 and had been in possession of the land as the lessee on payment of maktha for which receipt has also been issued.

¶8

The 4^th respondent relies upon the entries made in the register maintained by the 4^th respondent under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, wherein this land has also been shown as the land owned by the 4^th respondent-satram.

¶9

¶10

Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would rely upon the Judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in case of Vinjamuri Rajagopalachariy Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others¹ to submit that there is a presumption in favour of the 4^th respondent.

¶11

The petitioners had filed a reply to this counter. In the reply it is stated that the issue of ownership of the land had gone up before the appellate authority, who had passed an order dated.11.08.2021 in file.No.RDOPLK-LANDOROR(ROR)/17/2021SA, wherein the appeal of the 4^th respondent on this issue was rejected. The petitioners would also contend that the revenue records clearly show that the land in question was D-patta land and as such the 4^th respondent-satram is not the owner. The petitioners did not specifically deny the allegations made in the counter affidavit that they had participated in the auction of the lease hold rights earlier. However, there is a general denial of all the averments in the counter affidavit. It is also stated that permanent pattas are said to have been given to the petitioners.

¶12

As can be seen from the above, there are complicated issues of fact relating to title and ownership of these lands and the same cannot be adjudicated by this court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. These are issues

¶13

1 2016 (2) ALD 236

¶14

¶15

and disputes which can be resolved by the Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati, under Section 87 of the Endowments Act.

¶16

In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati for a resolution as to whether the said land belong to the 4^th respondent-satram or to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

To enable the petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy, the interim directions granted earlier shall be extended for a further period of six weeks.

¶18

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

¶19

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶20

04.10.2021 Note: CC in two days B/o. (BSM)

¶21

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.2129 of 2021

¶24

04-10-2021

¶25

Note: CC in two days B/o. BSM

Darru Paaramma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darru Paaramma 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

Kantubhukta Sivannarayana Vs The State of A.P

Kantubhukta Sivannarayana Vs .The State of A.P

Kantubhukta Sivannarayana Vs The State of A.P

Midde Sankaraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.v.Subba NaiduATP.Venkata Subbaiah (died) per lrs 4 to 6 Vs Pamidi Subbaiah

Manchineni Srihari Vs Manchineni Kesava Rao