Dismissed

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao v. the Assistant Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2023WP/5860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen petitioner challenged a Tribunal order directing his eviction from temple lands as an encroacher. The High Court held that without proof of a valid lease or license, the petitioner is deemed an encroacher under the Endowments Act, dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the admission stage; no order as to costs.

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao Vs the Assistant… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV^

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY .THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERlS TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5860 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged about 80 years, Senior Citizen, weaver. Door No. 5-4. GrandhalayapeL, Near Ghat Road, Archi Gate. Opp. Sri LakshmiNarasimha Swamy Temple. Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District

¶9

...PETITIONER AND

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶11

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District Rep by its Executive Officer

¶12

The A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani Rep by its Registrar

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the iaffidavif filed therewith, the High Court may be. pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records relating to Decree and Order dated 26.7.2022 passed in OA No. 147/2015 on the file of Hon'ble A P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani and set aside the same as illegal and for a consequential direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to sell the property to the petitioner as per their acceptance @ Rs. 240/- and Rs. 300/- per . square yard in the interest of justice.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in. the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of Decree and Order dated 26.7.2022 passed in OA No. 147/2015 on the file of Hon'ble A P Endowments Tribunal. Amaravathi at Pedakakani including the eviction of the petitioner from D No. 233 in an extent of 350 Square Yards pending disposal of the above WP in the interest of Justice.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Between:

¶19

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur Guntur District. ...Petitioner/1®‘ Respondent

¶20

AND

¶21

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged about 80 years. Senior Citizen, weaver. Door No. 5-4. Grandhalayapel., Near Ghat Road, Archi Gate, Opp. Sri LakshmiNarasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri Town and Mandal Guntur District

¶22

4^ . ••• ■ Respondent/Petitioner iL/ncilllUIICI 2. bn Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District Rep by its Executive Officer

¶23

1. The A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani Rep by its

¶24

Registrar

¶25

...Respondents/Respondents

¶26

(Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties in this petition)

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 10.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.5860 of 2023, of not to evict the petitioner from subject property.

¶28

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶29

Between:

¶30

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District Rep bv its Executive Officer

¶31

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2

¶32

AND

¶33

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged about 80 years. Senior Citizen, weaver. Door No. 5-4. Grandhalayapel., Near Ghat Road, Archi Gate, Opp. Sri LakshmiNarasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri Town and Mandal Guntur District

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Guntur Guntur District.

¶35

The A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi, at Pedakakani, Rep by its Registrar

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 01.05.2023 passed in W.P. No. 5860 of 2023.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A. SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondents 1&3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent 2: M/s P. PADMAVATHI, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶40

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.5860 of 2023

¶42

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao, S/o Kankaiah, . aged about 80 years, Senior Citizen, Weaver, Door No.5-4, Grandhalayapet, near Ghat Road, Archi Gate, Opp. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

¶43

... Petitioner.

¶44

Versus

¶45

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, Guntur District and two others.

¶46

... Respondents.

¶47

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Sreedhar

¶48

Counsel for respondents 1 85 3 : GP for Endowments

¶49

Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt.P.Padmavathi

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶52

relief:

¶53

"... to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one- in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to Decree and Order dated 26.07.2022 passed in O.A.No.147 of2O15 on the file of the A.P. Endownnents Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani and set aside the

¶54

Page 2 of 10

¶55

SRSJ WP No.5860 of2023

¶56

same, as illegal and for a consequential direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to sell the property to the petitioner as per their acceptance @ •RS.240/- and Rs.300/- per square yard in the interest of justice ...”

¶57

2. a) In the affidavit it was contended interalia that the petitioner and 50 others occupied the land in D.No.233 of an extent of Ac. 15.38 cents. Petitioner bias been in possession of 350 square yards. Petitioner and others formed an association, which was registered under the Societies Act under the name and style of ‘Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Housing Society’ (for short “the Society”) vide No.90 of 1986 dated 17.4.1986. Representation was made on behalf of the society to the Government as well as to the Endowments Department. The Endowments Department at District Level including the 2nd respondent made proposals to the higher authorities to sell the property in favour of petitioner and others, in possession of respective extents.

¶58

b) The Commissioner, Endowments addressed letter dated 22.07.1999 to the Government requesting to accord permission to the 2^^ respondent to sell the land in favour of 37 encroachers @ Rs.300/- per squard yard. The 2nd

¶59

Paged of 10

¶60

SRSJ WP No.5860 of2023

¶61

respondent in its letter dated 11.02.2004 addressed to the Endowments Department requested to regularize the encroachments Ac. 1.72 cents in S.No.233. It is also proposed by the Government that the rate should be Rs.500/- per square yard. When the negotiations between the encroachers and the Endowments Department are going on, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.405 Revenue (Endowment-II) Department dated 04.07.2002 for regularization of encroachments in respect of urban properties and policy guidelines for land disposal, based on the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee.

¶62

c) Pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.405 dated 04.07.2002, the Society addressed letter to the Government requesting to alienate the property to the encroachers for Rs.240/- and Rs.300/- per square yard. Some of the effected parties approached the High Court and filed W.P.No.21148 of 2002 and the High Court granted interim order at admission stage and the same is still pending consideration.

¶63

d) Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.A.No.l47 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati urider Section

¶64

¶65

¶66

Page 4 of 10 SRSJ WP No.5860 of2023

¶67

83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act”) - seeking eviction. Petitioner contested the OA. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.07.2022, without considering the material available on record, ordered eviction and further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards damages. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed.

¶68

Heard Sri A.Sreedhar, learned counsel for petitioner. the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 85 3 and Smt.P.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for 2"'* respondent-Temple.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and others occupied the land belonging to the Temple about 70 years back and they have been in possession and enjoyment of respective plots. He would also submit that the Endowments Commissioner addressed letter dated 22.07.1999 to accord permission to the Executive Officer of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, ^angalagiri to sell away Ac. 1.63% cents in D.No.233 of /

¶70

Page 5 of 10

¶71

SRSJ WP No.5860 01'2023

¶72

Mangalagiri Town in favour of 37 encroachers @ Rs.300/- per square yard by way of private negotiations to regularize the encroachments. He would submit that the Executive Officer of the Temple addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary on 05.12:2002 seeking clarification regarding G.O.Ms.No.405, regarding alienation of plots in favour of encroachers. He would also submit that none of the documents filed along with writ petition were considered by the Tribunal and thus prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

¶73

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Temple and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, supported the order of the Tribunal.

¶74

6. Now, the points for consideration are:

¶75

1) Whether the petitioner is termed as encroacher under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987? If so, whether he is liable to be evicted?

¶76

2) Whether the order dated 26.07.2022 in O.A.No.147 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati is liable to

be set aside?

Paged of 10

SRSJ WP No.5860 of2023

¶81

7. Respondents 1 and 2 being the petitioners filed O.A.No.l47 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravafi to pass eviction orders against the respondent (petitioner herein) and further to direct the respondent (petitioner herein) to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property to the 2”^ petitioner-Temple.

¶82

It was pleaded that an extent of Ac. 15.38 cents in D.No.233 of Mangalagiri Town was endowed by Namburu Venkatappayya, S/o Seetha Ramaiah to the 2^^ respondentTemple by way of a Donation Deed dated 06.02.1890 vide document No.282 of 1890. The Property Register of the Temple, approved vide R.Dis.No.A5/10591/2009 dated 17.12.2009, shows that the property belongs to the temple. Out of total extent, Ac.4.00 cents was acquired for establishment of Government Hospital; in Ac.2.00 cents of land, TTD Kalyana Mandapam was constructed; in Ac.0.40 cents, R 85 B Road was laid leading to Tenali and in Ac.4.00 cents of land. Temple Choultry and vacant land around it is existing. The remaining land was encroached by several peS^le. The 2"^ petitioner herein got issued legal notice dated

¶83

Page 7 of 10

¶84

SRSJ WP No.5860 of2023

¶85

20.10.2012 to all the encroachers to vacate and hand over possession. Later O.A. was filed under Section 83 of the Act.

¶86

Petitioner herein being the respondent in O.A. filed counter.. Counter averments are reiteration contents of writ affidavit. Hence they need not be specifically extracted.

¶87

As seen from the order of the Tribunal, on behalf of petitioners therein Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondent. Junior Assistant of the Temple was examined as P.W. 1 and the writ petitioner was examined as R.W. 1.

¶88

Ex.P-2 is copy of donation deed dated 06.02.1890 under which Ac. 15.38 cents were donated to the Temple. Ex.P-3 is the extract of Approved Property Register of the Temple. The writ petitioner pleaded that petitioner and others have been in possession of respective extents for the last 70 years. Even to plead and prove adverse possession, petitioner should establish acquisition of right by adverse possession by 30.09.1951. Case at hand, petitioner never claimed adverse possession and in fact, the material papers filed along with writ petition (no documents were filed or marked in OA),

¶89

Page 8 of 10

¶90

SRSJ WP No,5860of2023

¶91

would disclose that petitioner and others are requesting to

¶92

alienate the encroached portion.

¶93

/ 12. It is apt to extract Section 83 of the Act, which reads

¶94

thus:

¶95

Section 83 - Encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers

¶96

(1) Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a complaint made by the trustee has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as 'encroacher') any land, building, tank, well, spring or water-course or any space belonging to the institution or endowment, wherever situated or deemed as an encroacher under any of the provisions of this Act, the Assistant Commissioner shall report the fact together with relevant particulars to the 1 [Endowments Tribunal] having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated.

¶97

Explanation:- For the purpose of this Chapter the expression 'encroacher' shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiiy or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it.

¶98

(2) --

¶99

Page 9 of 10

¶100

SRSJ WP No.5860of2023

¶101

-I I

¶102

I I

¶103

A perusal of the definition, in the absence of valid lease, mortgage or license, if any person is continuing the property belonged to institution the said person will be termed as encroacher. The case at hand, petitioner did not file any document to prove that his possession over the land is by way or lease or license etc., In the absence of same, petitioner can be termed as encroacher and his possession is hot valid in the eye of law.

¶104

The Tribunal considered all the aspects and eventually ordered eviction. Unless and until there is alienation in favour of petitioner under Section 80 of the Act, the petitioner will be treated as an encroacher only. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 11812 of 2005 passed an interim order, whereby directed the authorities not to alienate the properties without prior permission. The Tribunal considered all these aspects. This Court does not find any irregularity and illegally in the order passed by the Tribunal brooks interference of this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶105

Page 10 of 10 SRSJ WP No.5860 of 2023

¶106

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at admission

¶107

stage. No order as to costs.

¶108

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

¶109

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. A. Sreedhar Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to M/s P. Padmavathi, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Sdkr

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/09/2023

ORDER

WP.No.5860 of 2023

¶114

’"l
X
19 SEP ®3
ioesspATc;^

¶115

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao 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

Shri Shyam Das Ji Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Ganji Subba Rao Vs the State of Ap

Vadde Nagamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devishetti Krishnaperumallu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.Namburi Sri Rama Chandra Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Medisetti Krishnaveni Vs the State of Ap