Allowed

Rajeti Janaki v. the Assistant Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Aug 2023CMA/169/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order allowing a civil miscellaneous appeal against a decree passed by the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal. The Apex Court held that the Tribunal failed to issue fresh notices to appellants after transferring the case from Visakhapatnam to Amaravathi. Consequently, the decree was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing, noting that merits were not decided.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, the Order and Decree dated 30.07.2019 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal.

Rajeti Janaki Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

C.M.A.No.169 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 30.07.2019 passed in O.A.No.17 of 2022 (old O.A.No.69 of 2001) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, the appellants have filed the present C.M.A.

¶5

Heard Ms.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the Appellants and perused the material on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants or 3^rd respondent are not encroachers as per Section 83(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) and there is no averment in the O.A. that the appellants or 1^st respondent have occupied the Temple land or building or they are continuing to remain in the land after expiry of lease, and in the absence of said pleadings, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Kakinada or the Tribunal committed an illegality in entertaining the same against the appellants.

¶7

¶8

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the 1^st respondent did not plead or gave particulars regarding the ownership of the Temple over the schedule land and the Tribunal erred in issuing notice to the 1^st respondent when there is no prima facie case of encroachment is established against the 3^rd respondent or appellants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants, who got the schedule property from their ancestors, got impleaded in the O.A. and filed counter opposing the O.A. and disputed the right, title and ownership of the 2^nd resonant temple. And the 3^rd respondent also filed counter stating that originally the owner of the schedule property was one Varjjala Seetharamaswamy and he leased out the premises and after his death, the rents are paying to his legal heirs, i.e., appellants herein.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the revenue entries and entries in Section 43 Register under Endowments Act will not confer any title on the Temple with regard to schedule property in O.A.No.17 of 2002.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the O.A.No.69 of 2001 was

¶12

¶13

transferred from the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada Endowments Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and numbered as O.A.No.17 of 2002 and after the year 2014, the Endowment Tribunal, Visakhapatnam did not function regularly, and thereafter, it was shifted to Amaravathi at Pedkakani and after shifting the Tribunal, no notice was issued to the Appellants intimating the date of hearing of the O.A., and therefore, the Appellants had no opportunity to pursue the matter. On this ground alone, the impugned Order and Decree dated 30.07.2019 is liable to be set-aside.

¶14

On hearing learned counsel on both sides and considering the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the question that came up for consideration is “Whether the learned Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani had issued notices to these appellants about transfer of the proceedings and about the next date of hearing of the proceedings.” It is on this aspect learned counsel on both sides submitted that there was no record to show that after the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal any fresh notices were taken out to respondents therein, who are the appellants herein. A perusal of the order impugned shows that these appellants were earlier represented at Visakhapatnam by their learned counsel and at the present place the Tribunal is

¶15

¶16

functioning, their absence was recorded and the matter went further and was disposed of. Thus, from the record and the submissions on both sides, it is clear that after the case was transferred from Visakhapatnam to Amaravathi at Pedakakani no fresh notices were ordered to these appellants by the learned Tribunal. It is undisputed that every transferee Court or every Court where the geographical location of the Court is changed from one place to another place, parties on both sides are required to be notified by the learned Tribunal about its current location and the date that is set for holding the enquiry. Unless that is done, the basic principle of hearing both parties before adjudicating matter could not be complied with. A decision taken without due notice to one of the parties cannot be countenanced. That is the purport of Section 150 Code of Civil Procedure also. Since in the case at hand as the impugned order of the learned Tribunal was passed without due notice to the present appellants, the appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside. Be it noted, the merits of the decision on facts and law with reference to the dispute between parties is not decided by this Court. The matter has to be remanded to the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani for fresh hearing and disposal.

¶17

¶18

9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed

¶19

setting aside the Order and Decree dated 30.07.2019 of learned Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani

¶20

in O.A.No.17 of 2002 and remanding the matter to the Tribunal

¶21

for fresh hearing and disposal. Both parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 04.09.2023 and they are at liberty to produce further evidence before the Tribunal.

¶22

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶24

stand closed.

¶25

_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 16.08.2023

BMS/HS

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶30

C.M.A.No.169 of 2021

¶31

Date: 16.08.2023

¶32

BMS/HS

Rajeti Janaki v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeti Janaki v. the Assistant 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

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Limited Vs Chedalla Venkata Sivaji

Pamulapati Sambashiva Rao Vs Talluri Ravi Chand

Aleti Siva Prakasa Rao Vs Rasheeda Begum

Rajeti Janaki Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Bvl Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director of Mines and Geology

The Branch Manager Vs Chennamsetti Srinivasa Rao