Quashed

Malle Naga Subbamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2024CMA/397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of batch Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed against orders of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. The Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes and quashed the Tribunal orders, granting liberty to file a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Orders of A.P. Endowments Tribunal quashed. Liberty granted to file a civil suit within two months. Status quo maintained pending civil suit.

Malle Naga Subbamma Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH “ day of march TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR present

¶3

honourable dr. justice K. MANA/IADHA RAO

¶4

^i^^ikMISCELLANEQU.9 apdc^, jjOS: 384, 382^383; 385, ^1,392. 393. 394 .mx; 39^397, 398, An^ 403, 404. 405. 406, 407^ 408^9, 410, 411,4-19 413. 414 & fin? OF

¶5

CjVIL miscellaneous appf/,| jlO: 384 OF 70?-^

¶6

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 made in OA.No.498/2012 against the Order dated 30.11. 2022 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶7

Between;

¶8

Erapati Adi Narayana, S/o. late Krishnaiah, R/o. Door -No. 15-281, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M District. Prakasam

¶9

■■.Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

E The Assistant Commissioner, Prakasam District. Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶12

•■■(Petitioner No.1)

¶13

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶14

...(Petitioner No.2)

¶15

Erapati Krishnaiah, (Died), R/o. Door No.15-281, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶16

...(Respondent No.1)

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula,‘Stan ding Counsel for Endowments

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶21

¶22

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 379 OF 2023

¶23

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Relig lOUS Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.502/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District. Between: Smt. Malle Venkata Ramana, W/o. Narayana, R/o. Door No. 15-272, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V AND M, Prakasam District.

¶24

...Appellant/Respondent

¶25

AND

¶26

The Assistant .Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶27

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶28

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶30

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, SC^for Endowments

¶31

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶32

¶33

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 381 OF 2023

¶34

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.516/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶35

Between:

¶36

Smt. Shaik Basheera, W/o. Masthan Vali, R/o. Door No.15-291,^Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶37

...Appellant/Respondent

¶38

AND

¶39

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶40

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶41

...Respondents/Petltioners

¶42

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶43

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶44

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶45

¶46

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 382 OF 2023

¶47

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.520/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶48

Between:

¶49

Shaik Shaheed, S/o. Fareesa Saheb, R/o. Door No. 15-268/1, Chinna Bus Sta

¶50

nd. Near Poleramma Temple, Podili Vand M, Prakasam District.

¶51

...Appellant/Respondent

¶52

AND

¶53

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole

¶54

Prakasam District.

¶55

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam Rep by its Executive Officer

¶56

Podili Village and Mandal Prakasam District

¶57

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶58

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶59

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶60

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶61

¶62

^VIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 383 OF 202.^

¶63

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.521/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶64

Between:

¶65

Smt. Palaparthi Ankamma, W/o. late Subbaiah, R/o. Door No.15-278, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and m! Prakasam District..

¶66

...Appellant/Respondent

¶67

AND

¶68

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶69

Prakasam District.

¶70

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, f Rep. by its Executive Officer,

¶71

Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶72

■..Respondents/Petition ers

¶73

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶74

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶75

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶76

¶77

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 385 OF 2023

¶78

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.507/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶79

Between:

¶80

Nagineni Prasada Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Door No.15-279-D Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M Prakasam District.

¶81

...Appellant/Respondent

¶82

AND

¶83

I i

¶84

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶85

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶86

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶87

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶88

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶89

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶90

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 390 OF 2023

¶91

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religi:::lOUS Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.517/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶92

Between:

¶93

Smt. Nallabothu Lakshmi Devi, W/o. late Rattaiah, R/o. Door No.15277-A, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶94

...Appellant/Respondent

¶95

AND

¶96

The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶97

Prakasam District.

¶98

Sri Poleramma Athmavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶99

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶100

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶101

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶102

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶103

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 391 OF 2023

¶104

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.503/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶105

Between:

¶106

Smt. Kakarla Hy.mavathi, W/o. Thirupataiah, R/o. Chinna Bus Stand Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶107

...Appellant/Respondent

¶108

AND

¶109

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶110

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶111

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶112

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶113

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula,.Stan ding Counsel for Endowments

¶114

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶115

¶116

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 392 OF 2023

¶117

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.512/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶118

Between:

¶119

Smt. Karla Subbulu, W/o. Khadar Mohiddin, R/o. Door No. 15-290, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶120

...Appellant/Respondent

¶121

AND

¶122

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶123

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶124

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶125

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶126

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶127

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶128

¶129

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 393 OF 20?:^

¶130

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11,2022 made in OA.No.524/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶131

Between:

¶132

Polepally China Narasimhulu, S/o. Subbaiah R/o. Door No. 15-287, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M‘, Prakasam District.

¶133

...Appellant/Respondent

¶134

AND

¶135

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶136

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and'Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶137

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶138

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri PosanI Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶139

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶140

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶141

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 394 OF 2023

¶142

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.506/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶143

Between:

¶144

Galeti Venkata Ramanaiah, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, R/o. Door No.15271 - A, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶145

...Appellant/Respondent

¶146

AND

¶147

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶148

Prakasam District.

¶149

Sri Poleramma ’Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶150

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶151

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶152

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri.Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶153

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶154

¶155

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 395 OF 202.-^

¶156

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.494/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶157

Between:

¶158

Polepalli China Edukondalu, S/o. Narasimhulu, R/o. Door No. 15-283-1, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶159

...Appellant/Respondent

¶160

AND

¶161

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Ongole Prakasam District.

¶162

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶163

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶164

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri PosanI Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶165

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶166

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶167

¶168

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 396 OF 2023

¶169

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religi-lOUS: Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.504/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶170

Between:

¶171

Veera Srinivasulu, S/o. Chalamaiah, R/o. Door No.15-26/1, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶172

...Appellant/Respondent

¶173

AND

¶174

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶175

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶176

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶177

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶178

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶179

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶180

¶181

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 397 OF 2023

¶182

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.515/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶183

Between;

¶184

Smt. Malle Naga Subbamma, W/o. Yarraiah, R/o. Door No. 15-274/2, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District

¶185

...Appellant/Respondent

¶186

AND

¶187

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶188

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶189

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶190

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶191

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶192

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶193

¶194

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 398 OF 2023

¶195

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.499/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶196

Between:

¶197

Peram Ramanaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, R/o. Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶198

...Appellant/Respondent

¶199

AND

¶200

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶201

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶202

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶203

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri VIjaya Kumar Potturl

¶204

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶205

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶206

CIViL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 399 OF 2023

¶207

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Relig lOUS Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.513/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶208

Between:

¶209

Cherukuri Srinu, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Door No. 15-284, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶210

...Appellant/Respondent

¶211

AND

¶212

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶213

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶214

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶215

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶216

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶217

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶218

¶219

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 400 OF 2023

¶220

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.519/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶221

Between:

¶222

Tanikonda Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarulu, R/o. Door No. 15-268, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶223

...Appellant/Respondent

¶224

AND

¶225

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶226

Prakasam District.

¶227

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶228

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶229

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶230

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶231

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶232

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 403 OF 2023 ’

¶233

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.505/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶234

Between:

¶235

Smt. Galeti Nagamma, W/o. Venkata Ramaiah, R/o. Door No. 15-271 - B, Chinna Bus ‘Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶236

...Appellant/Respondent

¶237

AND

¶238

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶239

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶240

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶241

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶242

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula/Stand ing Counsel for Endowments

¶243

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶244

¶245

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 404 OF 2023

¶246

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.522/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶247

Between:

¶248

Smt. Dasari Aruna, W/o. Srinivasulu, R/o. Door No.15-280-B,^Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶249

...Appellant/Respondent

¶250

AND

¶251

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Ongole Prakasam District, t

¶252

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶253

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶254

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturl

¶255

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶256

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶257

¶258

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 405 OF 2023

¶259

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.528/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶260

Between:

¶261

Veera Sriniavas, S/o. Chalamaiah, R/o. Door No. 15-286,^ChinnaBus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V AND M, Prakasam District

¶262

...Appellant/Respondent

¶263

AND

¶264

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶265

...(Petitioner No.1)

¶266

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶267

...(Petitioner No.2)

¶268

Veera Narayanamma, (Died) W/o. Chalamaiah, R/o. Door No. 15-286 Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V AND M Prakasam District.

¶269

...(Respondent No.1)

¶270

...Respondents

¶271

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶272

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri. Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counselfor Endowments

¶273

Counsel for Respondent No.3: None Appeared

¶274

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 406 OF 2023

¶275

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.526/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶276

Between:

¶277

Smt. Jagannadham Sowbhagyam @ Rajyam, W/o. Venkata Swamy, R/o. Door No. 15-277/1, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶278

...Appellant/Respondent

¶279

AND

¶280

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶281

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶282

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶283

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶284

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶285

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶286

¶287

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 407 OF 2023

¶288

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.525/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶289

Between:

¶290

Palaparthi Rama Krishna, S/o. Buddaiah, R/o. Door No. 15-274/1, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶291

...Appellant/Respondent

¶292

AND

¶293

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶294

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶295

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶296

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶297

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶298

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶299

¶300

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 408 OF 2023

¶301

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987. against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.495/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶302

Between:

¶303

Smt. Polisetty Koteswaramma, W/o. Thirupataiah, R/o. Watchman, Gurukula Patasala, Kondepi V and M, Prakasam District.

¶304

...Appellant/Respondent

¶305

AND

¶306

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole

¶307

Prakasam District.

¶308

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶309

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶310

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri VIjaya Kumar Potturi

¶311

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶312

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶313

¶314

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 409 OF 2023

¶315

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.518/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶316

Between:

¶317

Smt. Naraboina Subbamma, W/o. Gangaiah, R/o. Door No. 15-273, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶318

...Appellant/Respondent

¶319

AND

¶320

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Ongole Prakasam District.

¶321

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶322

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶323

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶324

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶325

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶326

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 410 OF 2023

¶327

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.529/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶328

Between:

¶329

Cherukuri Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Door No. 15-270, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and m’, Prakasam District

¶330

...Appellant/Respondent

¶331

AND

¶332

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole

¶333

Prakasam District.

¶334

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶335

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶336

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶337

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶338

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶339

2-^

¶340

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 411 OF 2023

¶341

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.534/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶342

Between:

¶343

Smt. Sayeed Fathimoon, W/o. Khadar Mohiddin, R/o. Door No. 15-293, " Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶344

...Appellant/Respondent

¶345

AND

¶346

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶347

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶348

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶349

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶350

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶351

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶352

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 412 OF 2023

¶353

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.510/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶354

Between:

¶355

Payyavula Kondaiah, S/o. Guravaiah, R/o. Door No. 15-280 - A, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District..

¶356

...Appellant/Respondent

¶357

AND

¶358

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶359

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶360

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶361

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶362

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶363

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶364

¶365

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 413 OF 2023

¶366

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.514/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶367

Between:

¶368

Erlapati Subba Rao, S/o. Krishnaiah, R/o. Door No.15-279-F, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M Prakasam District.

¶369

...Appellant/Respondent

¶370

AND

¶371

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶372

Sri Poleramma Ainmavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶373

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶374

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶375

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶376

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶377

¶378

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 414 OF 2023

¶379

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.535/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District I.

¶380

Between:

¶381

Shaik Allabakshu. S/o. Abdul Rahman, R/o. Door No. 15-292, Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District

¶382

...Appellant/Respondent

¶383

AND

¶384

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶385

Prakasam District. 'i

¶386

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podiii Viiiage and Mandai. Prakasam District.

¶387

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶388

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶389

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶390

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶391

_3\

¶392

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 507 OF 2023

¶393

Appeal Under Section 84 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.500/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District.

¶394

Between:

¶395

Polepalli Srinu, S/o. China Narasimhulu, R/o. Chinna Bus Stand, Near Poleramma Temple, Podili V and M, Prakasam District.

¶396

...Appellant/Respondent

¶397

AND

¶398

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶399

Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶400

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶401

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶402

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Codrt may be pleased condone the delay of 182 days occurred in preferring the Appeal against the Order dated 30.11.2022 made in OA.No.500/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District pending disposal of the CMA.

¶403

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶404

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 stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned eviction

¶405

¶406

order dated 30.11.2022 in OA.No.500/2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District pending disposal of the CMA.

¶407

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Potturi

¶408

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶409

Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶410

The Court made the following:

APHCO10439892023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶415

[3310]

¶416

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶417

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶418

PRESENT

¶419

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶420

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 384. 379, 381. 382, 383. 385, 390. 391. 392, 393, 394, 395. 396. 397. 398, 399. 400. 403, 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412, 413. 414 and 507 of 2023

¶421

Between:

¶422

Erapati Adi Narayana,

¶423

...APPELLANT

¶424

AND

¶425

The Assistant Commissioner and Others

¶426

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶427

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶428

l.VIJAYA KUMAR POTTURI

¶429

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶430

¶431

2.MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENTS PALNADU PRAKASAM AND SPSR NELLORE

¶432

The Court made the following:

¶433

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶434

All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the separate orders dated 30.11.2022 passed in O.A.Nos.498, 500, 524, 506, 494,515, 520, 516, 502, 504, 503, 517, 507, 521, 510, 512, 499, 513, 522, 505, 519, 495, 525, 526, 528, 529, 518 of 2012 and 534, 535 of 2013 on the lile of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani.

¶435

¶436

As the issue involved in these civil miscellaneou s appeals is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Judgment.

¶437

The facts in these appeals are similar and identical, therefore CMA No.384 of 2017 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are referred to for convenience. 4. All the applications were filed by the 2nd petitioner, who is 2nd respondent temple herein under Section 83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 seeking for eviction against the 2nd respondent directing him to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the 2'’d petitioner/2nd respondent temple within a stipulated period and for costs.

¶438

In all the applications, the approved property register of the 2nd petitioner temple under Section 38 of A.P.Act 1966 ciso shows the entry in R.Dis.No.A4/5417/1975 dated 16.08.1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore District and even as per the said register, the 2nd petitioner temple is the absolute owner of the said land. The F.L.R. issued by the Tahsildar or Podili also shows the existence of the 2nd petitioner temple in the said S.No.852. while so, all the respondents therein encroached into the part of the said site and raised constructions for residing therein. despite the fact that the said land ISi meant for exclusive use of the devotees of 2nd petitioner temple i-e.,i to park their carts and also for making Pradakshinams to the goddess Sri Poleramma Ammavaru. But due to encroachments made by all the respondents the devotees are suffering a lot since there is no sufficient place either for parking or for Pradakshinam. Since the 1 respondent is in unauthorized occupation of the land belongs to the 2nd petitioner temple, it amounts to encroachment under Section 83 of the Act 30/1987. Despite repeated request made by the officials of the 2nd

¶439

¶440

petitioner temple, the respondents did not turn up to comply with the same therefore finally they got issued legal notice dated 19.05.2012 calling upon them to vacate and handover the possession or else the legal action would be initiated etc. during the pendency of the petition, the l^t respondent therein died and 2^ respondent was impleaded as LR of the deceased l®t respondent. But still they simply remained in possession without complying with the demand, of course. some of whom got issued replies by taking the similar pleas as are apparent from counter. Therefore, the present petitions have been^filed.

¶441

Per contra, the 2'’d respondent, who is appellant herein has filed counters in all the applications before the Tribunal inter alia contended that ail the applications filed by the petitioners are not maintainable^eitherin law^oronfacts and further asserted that the petitioners have no locus^standi at all to file the petitioners and moreover the Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the petition schedule property is not the endowed property at ail. The revenue department, having recognized the encroachment made by the encroachers, collected the land revenue also up to certain period and thereafter Podili Panchayat also levied property tax for all the houses constructed by the encroachers and the electricity connection was also provided to the possession and enjoyment of their respective portions encroached by^{themandneitherthe} revenue department nor the Panchayat had ever demanded for eviction. The respondents have been in possession and enjoyment since the regime of their ancestors i.e.,

¶442

since more than 50 years and thereby they also perfected their title by adverse possession and therefore the O.As may be dismissed being not maintainable.

¶443

Basing on the above pleadings of the respective parties inHi all the cases. the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

¶444

¶445

Whether the 2nd applicant temple is the owner of the^{petitionscheduleproperty} and if so whether the 2nd respondent is in unauthorized^{occupationofthesame} as an encroacher U/s 83 of Act 30/ 1987 and liable to be^evicted? 2) To what result?

¶446

of trial, the Record Assistant of the 2nd petitioner 8. During the course PW.l and got marked Ex.Pl to Ex.P8. the 2nd respondent temple was examined as was also examined himself as RW.l and got marked Ex.Rl to Ex.RS on their the oral and documentary evidence of both parties,^the behalf. Upon considering with costs and directed the 2nd Tribunal has allowed all the applications and deliver the vacant possession of the respondent therein in all cases to vacate schedule properties to the 2nd petitioner temple within^{Onemonth,andalsofurther} month towards damages from the date of petition directed to pay @ Rs.500/- per month from the date of till the date of decree and thereafter, @ Rs.lOOO/- per decree till the date of eviction/delivery of the property. It was further held that the in the event of failure of the 2nd respondent to comply with the^{ordersofthisCourt,} the SHO, Podili Town Police Station, is directed to^provide necessary police of the above order. Aggrieved by the aid/assistance to the petitioners in execution civil miscellaneous appeals came to be filed. same, the present

¶447

are cited by the appellant in C.M.A.No.384 of 2023, 9. The pleadings which the same are adopted by the other appellants ini other civil miscellaneous Appeals , 385, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, i.e., CMA Nos. 379, 381, 382, 383 398, 399, 400, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410,^{411,412,413,414and} 507 of 2023.

¶448

i Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing iu. Heard Sri Posani Sri Potturi Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for^{theappellant(s)andSri} , learned Standing Counsel for Endowments (Palnadu, Mekapothula Srinivasa Rao Prakasam, SPSR Nellore Region) appearing for the respondents.

¶449

¶450

On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that these matters are squarely covered by the common judgment passed by this Court in CMA No. 182 of 2017 & Batch, dated 12.01.2024, and hence, requests this Court to pass similar common judgment in these appeals also. The operative portion of the said common judgment, is as follows:

¶451

the ifle of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani Furth^^ of 2012 on the appellants to ifle a civil Suit before Civil Cnv^h ^ granted to available under law within a period of two toJl^v ^ Jurisdiction as are copy of this order. Till then both hfe nnJ ^ date of^receiptofa status yuo,e^sttnyastToZ^^^^^^

¶452

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reported no objechon to dispose of these appeals on the same lines.

¶453

In view of the submission made by both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material available on record, this Court deems fit to allow these appeals in terms of the said common judgment.

¶454

Accordingly, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in terms of the common judgment dated 12.01. 2024 passed in CMA No. 182 of 2017 & Batch.

¶455

The Registry is directed to attach copy of the common judgment ini:_ CMA No.,82 of 2017 & Batch, dated ,2.01.2024 to thts order, Miscellaneous loetttions pending, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed.

¶456

¶457

To,

¶458

SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶459

SECTION OFFICER

¶460

The A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur

¶461

District.

¶462

The Executive Officer, Sri Poleramma Ammavari Devasthanam, Podiii

¶463

Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶464

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole,

¶465

Prakasam District.

¶466

One CC to Sri. Vijaya Kumar Potturi Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Standing Counsel for Endowments [OPUC]

¶467

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶468

Three CD Copies

¶469

SAM

¶470

sree

¶471

Along with photocopy of certified copy of Common Judgment^dated 12.01.2024 passed by this Court in CMA No. 182 of 2017 & batch.

¶472

HIGH COURT DATED: 18/03/2024

¶473

ANoTy]^
5 0 3 SEP 202^
(o.

¶474

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶475

CMA.Nos.384,379,381,382,383,385,390,391,392,393, 394,395,396,397,398,399,400,403,404,405,406,407,408 ,409,410,411,412,413,414 & 507 of 2023

¶476

ALLOWING THESE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS

¶477

high court of ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI and_857jo^017

¶478

C.M.A. No.182 of 2017
Between;
* I!®"k s/o Vekataswamy Aged about 56 years, Cultivation, B/o Srinagar, Addanki, Prakasam District, State ofA.p.
Ine Assistant Commission Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District. Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta, Addanki Village & Mandal,' Prakasam District. Rep. by its Executive Officer. $ 1. er, 2.	Appellant
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 12.01.2024	Respondents
the hon’ble dr.justice Whether Reporters ofLocal newspapers may be allowed the Judgments? K. MANMAD 1. to see	HA RAO Yes -
2. Whether the copies ofjudgmentmay be marked to Law Reporters/Journals	Yes -
3. WhetherTheir Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair Judgment? copy of the	Yes-

¶479

dr. JUSTICE K, MA^aDKA RAO

¶480

¶481

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶482

CIVIL ivrTSCF.T T.ANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 182, 129, 152,^{159^} Ififi. 167. 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 320,^{34^} 345, 381 . 606. 620, 717. 816, 827, 835 and 857 of 2017

¶483

C.M.A. No.182 ur20l7

¶484

% 12.01.2024

¶485

Nathan' Ravindrudu. S/o Vekataswamy Aged about 56 years, Cultivation, R/o Srinagar, Addanki, Prakasam District, State of A.p. Appellant And

¶486

$ 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta, Addanki Village & Mandal, I’ralcasam DlsLiicL. Rep. by its Executive Officer. Respondents

¶487

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.Mallik

¶488

Mrs. Padmavathi Padnavis Counsel for Respondents: Sri Srinivasa Rao, SC for Endowments

¶489

Head note : ?Cases referred :

¶490

1003(2) AndhWP. 2'^

¶491

2014 LawSuit (SC) 3

¶492

3.W.A.No.888 and 899 of 2022, dated 23.09.2023

¶493

AIR 1996 (1) ALT 33 (sc)

¶494

¶495

1996 LawSuit (SC) 94 2014 LawSuit (Hyd) 556 7. 2012 LAwSuit(A) 887

¶496

1995 3 see 426

¶497

MANU/AP/0122/2023 = e.R.P.No. 2200 of 2022 10. 2011(9) see 126 11. 2010 see Online AP 352

¶498

¶499

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/169654277/ = W.P.No.17713 of 2017

¶500

¶501

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶502

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 182. 129, 152, 159, 166. 167. 174. 176. 177. 178. 180. 181, 183. 320. 342, 345. 381. 606. 620. 717. 816. 827. 835 and 857 of 2017

¶503

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶504

All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the common order dated 30.09.2016 passed in O.A.Nos.407, 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422,^423, 425, 426, 427, 420, 430, 131, 132 and 133 of 2012 on^the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani.

¶505

As the issue involved in these civil miscellaneous appeals is one and the same, these matters are taken^up t.-,g,-thcr for dispooal by this Common Judgment

¶506

The facts in these appeals are similar and identical, therefore CM A No. 182 of 2017 is taken as lead case,^andthe facts therein are referred to for convenience.

¶507

The facts of the case are that the 2"^ petitioner^is an institution that was published under Section 6(c )(i) of the Endowments Act 30/1987 vide R.Dis.No.J3/42590/ iy«7 of the Commissiuiici Eiidowmcnta Department, A.P. Hyderabad. The said Kuntn is .cipread over in an extent^of Ac 24.97 cents in S.No.632 of Addanki which is meant^for

¶508

¶509

drinking water purpose and the said Kunta was managed by the then Trustee Sri Karri Parasaiah and thereafter, his lineal decedents managed for certain period. The said Kunta has got landed property in an extent of Ac 32.80 cents in S. No. 1004 of Addanki. In the Resurvey Settlement Register, it shows that it is an Inam land granted^infavour of 2"'^ petitioner Kunta and Karri Perraiah was the then trustee. In 10(1) Account, it was clearly mentioned^thatthe owner of the said land is Karri Parasaiah Kunta and it is its Manyam represented by the Trustees Karri Venkata Swamy and others. As per the extract of Inam-1 B Register, the land was mentioned as Dharmadayam belongs to the said Kunta (Tank). As per approved Property Register under Section 43 of Endowments Act 30/1987 dated 1o 1 1 onno issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ongole, the said land belongs to 2"'^ petitioner temple. No.3 Adangal also shows the same. As the trustees of Karri family mismanaged the said property, the institution was appointed Executive Officers. 5. The 2"^^ petitioner issued registered notices dated 25.4.2011 to the respondents in all the cases, asking to

¶510

¶511

show their rights in the land otherwise legal action would be initiated. Accordingly, some respondents were issued reply dated 30.5.2011 stating that the .said Kunta was a private charitable endowment or a private charitable trust and the land of Ac 32.80 cents in 3.Nu.1004 was owned and enjoyed by the family of Karri Parasiah and their lineal decedents, who partitioned the uuid property and tliey acquired title by prescription and thev sold the properties as owners. Accordingly, the 2"^ petitioner and others have filed W.P.No.32266 of 2011 before this Court seeking for declaration that the proposed auction of lease hold rights without evicting the petitioners in due precess of law, io illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed^of by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2012 with a direction to the respondents to deliver vacant possession. In spite of repeated demands, the respondents failed to vacate. Hence the applications were filed.

¶512

The respondents filed their counters in all the applications with common defence that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, nobody claimed the schedule properties. It is further stated that .the lands were

¶513

¶514

treated as private lands. It is further stated that the respondents are owners of the petition schedule properties and they are bonafide purchasers for value. The 2"^! petitioner has no title to the property. Several documents clearly establish that the respondents and their predecessors in title are in possession and enjoyment^ofthe same as absolute owners. A copy of order dated 24.2.1993 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government reveals^that the Commissioner, Endowments Department sought permission of the Government to give the leasehold rights for fishing in Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta to one Batula Srinivasa Reddy for a period of six years from 1993-1994,to 1998-1999 on an annual maktha of Rs. 10,500/or otherwise by public auction and the Government accorded permission shows that the 2"'^ petitioner is not the^ownerof the said Kunta. The copy of Inam-B Register also shows that it is Dharmadayam and it is Karri Peraiah Kunta Manyam. There is no date of Inam-B Register. It is^nota public charitable institution and the said land is a private charitable endowment.

¶515

¶516

It is further stated that the family of Karri Paasaiah held large extents of land in Addanki revenue village and for purpose of drinking water, for their cattle and bullocks, their family had excavated a kunta called 'Parasaiah Kunta’ in their land of Ac. 24.97 cents situated in Sy No.632. It is a private kunta. The land in an extent of Ac 32.00 ociiL^i was owned by the tamily of Karri Parasiah, which is ancpstral property. The said fainily set apart the produce from out of the land of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No.1004 for maintenance, upkeeping and repairs of Kunta by constituting a committee and the same practice continued. The lineal descendants nf Karri Paraoaiah partitionrd the property of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No. 1004 and they were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the land for over a century and they were acquired title by enjoying the property and they have alienated some portions of land to others claiming absolute rights in the property. The owners were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds after due enquiry by Revenue authorities. Till now the 2"^ petitioner has not questioned the validity of the said passbooks and title deeds either by filing appeals before the competent

¶517

¶518

authority and it became final. As per order dated 24.02.1993 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, the Kunta being situated in Government land, the endowment department is not entitled to claim that Parasaiah Kunta is vested in Endowment department. The petitions are barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to^dismiss the petitions.

¶519

Basing on the above pleadings of the respective parties in all the cases, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

¶520

1. Whether the applicant is not a public but a private entity and the petition schedule property is a private property outside the purv'ievi' of the .^ct 30/1987 as contended by the respondent?

¶521

1. Whether the petition schedule property owned by the 2"^ applicant in the possession of the respondent is as unauthorized occupant and encroacher U/s 83 of the^Actand if 50 liable to be evicted?

¶522

1. Whether the O.A as filed is not maintainable under^Section 83 of the Act?

¶523

1. To what result?

¶524

During the course of trial, the Executive Officer^i.e.. the 2"^ petitioner was examined as PW.l in all the applications. In order to establish the case, the parties^have adduced oral evidence and got market their documents^inall the cases. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, the Tribunal has allowed all the

¶525

¶526

applications with costs and directed the respondents in all cases to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule properties within One month to the 2"'> petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil mioccllaneous appeals came to be tiled.

¶527

The pleadings which are cited by the appellant m^i:. C.M.A.No.182 of 201V, the same are adopted by the other appellants in other civil miscellaneous Appeals i.e.,^CMA Nos., 129, 152, 159, 166, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 1'81, 183, 320, 342, 345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835 and 857 of 2017.

¶528

Hoard Sri V.Malhk, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Padmavathi Padnavis, learned counsel and Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel^for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 12. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the common order of the learned Tribunal is vitiated by errors of law and jurisdiction. He submits that tho tn’hnnnl 'Ught to have seen that dgaiust Sy.No.lUU42fci and Sy.No.l004/2C the appellants’ name have been incorporated and as such admittedly the appellants are in

¶529

¶530

possession of the schedule property and failure to^consider the same in all the cases, has vitiated the conclusion. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the^claim of the respondent/endowment department is barred by limitation as the respondent/ endowment department^has not clearly pleaded as to when they have acquired title^and further ought to have seen that the claim of limitation^isnot saved under Section 143 of the Act and failure to consider the same has vitiated the conclusion. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that it has been neither be pleaded nor established even assuming without conceding that dharma kunta correlates to Karri Parasaiah Kunta whether the same is a private charitable trust or public charitable trust in as much no trust deed is^filedand in the absence of the same, the same cannot be assumed and further the Act 30/87 has no application to private charitable trust as per Section 1(3) of the Act. 13. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a catena of decisions reported in (i) Boppudi Punniah vs. Lakshmi

¶531

¶532

Narasimhaswamy varu, by its Trustee!, wherein the Hon^ble Apex Court held that :

¶533

problem to who should be regarded as the holder of the mam m regard to service inams. The learned Advocate-General, appearing for the institutions, maintains that this class of mams fan outside the pale of the Act in question and it is not competent for the tribunals functioning under the Act to decide as to who the him Z ''V/J’T commence,nerd of the Ael was according to ) THF "" h ^ mentioned above. A^t n f I Advocate-General suggests that the Act was not comprehensive enough to take in inams serving as emoluments annexed to service is that, there is no provision in the Act enabling the temple authorities to in.si.st vron Performance of deprivedmat whenof theoncepatta.a ryotwariHe alsopattasubmitsis thatissuedthe theexpressionpattadarinamdarcannot beis inappropriate with reference to an ofifce-holder, who is not nc nh^cluto owner of the property, and that an office-holder who could enjoy the property only so long as he renders service could not be conceived of as an inamdar ■. It may be mentioned here that sri Bhujanga Rao appearing on behalf of some other institutions, contends that the act coversXXall types of , mams. not excludingservice inarm and that it is not servicJ^nT^"^^ inapplicable to inams pertaining to iZ h Z' contends that the temple should be deemed to^be the holder of service mams. We will deal with it later on. ( 15 ) WE are inclined to accept the arguments of Sn Bhujanga ZfJZfTZZV not persuaded that the points presented by the lenrneH ndvocato General arc iubclwUiul We are Ze Z- 7 Legislature was either ignorant of or overlooked the e^stence of the mams of this type which undoubtedly are in great number m the Andhra area. In fact, it may not be incorrect to say that this category of mams forms a considerable proportion of the inams in the andhra area, be it m ryotwari or zamindari area. There is no justification" for attributing ignorance to the Legislature of the existence of this class of mams. ZZil '^^^[pmceed on the assumption that the Legislature^wasaware of mams belonging to this category IJ that were so. there is no reason why we should suppose that the Legislature thought of keeping out of the purview of the Act this class of mams, especially when the intendment of the Act was to abolish and convert mam lands into ryotwari lands. The absence of a provision enabling the authorities concerned to insist upon performance of service could not lead us to the conclusion that all service inams were excluded from the purview of the enactment. Further, it is argued on behalf of the respondents that it is open to the authorities concerned to insert a clause that the patta is issued to individuals as incumbents of a particular service and that the inam could be enjoyeH only so long as service is rendered. That may safeguard amply the interests of the institution. Even ij it were not sufficient, it could only be stated that it is a lacuna in thp enactment and it is for the Legislature to ifll it up nnH this Cewt cannot do anything m the matter. Moreover, if the argument of the learned Advocate-

¶534

1963(2) AndliWR214

¶535

¶536

General were to preuail, it must be held that the inams of the third category are also outside the Act, because there is no provision enabling the authorities concerned to compel the discharge of the obligations imposed upon them under the terms of the original grant.^Wecannotmake any distinction in that behalf between the two classes of inams. But it is not contended that the Act is inapplicable to persona] grants. On the parity of this reasoning, the service inams also must^{beheldasinams} governed by this enactment. Consequently, we are not very much impressed with the argument based upon the absence of a provision indicated above. WE will now proceed to consider the argument of Sri Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the institutions, that pattas^{mustbeissuedtothe} temples, as the object of the grantor was to get services performed in the temples. Since the inam constitutes the emoluments of persons performing certain services, it is the institution that gets the advantages of .services, and in the fitness of things it is the institution that should get the patta, continues the learned counsel. We are unable to assent to this proposition. It is no doubt true that the purpose of the grant was that it should serve as a source of maintenance for service-holdersⁱⁿ the temple : but that does not entitle the temple to get the patta.^Thecriterion is not whether the temple got any benefit from the grant by reason of services rendered there. The question is as to whom the inam^was w.ade and to whom it was confirmed at the time of the inam enquiry. It has been laid down in several decisions that service inams or personal^{inamscouldnot} be treated as endowments to the deity merely because the temple stood to gain by performance of services in the temple. Further, the problem has^to be solved with reference to section 4 which says that patta should be issued to the person or institution "holding the land as inamdar. incontestably, the service-holders have been in possession

¶537

(ii) In a case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi

¶538

Coo.op Housing Society Ltd. And others^, wherein it^was

¶539

held that ;

¶540

At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession. This Court in Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira reported in AIR1959 SC 31 observed that “in a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title. ” In Naaar Palika, Jind v. Jaaat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, this Court held as under:

¶541

“the onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintif.f In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintif.f The court is bound to enquire or

¶542

-2014LawSuit(SC)3

¶543

¶544

investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit. rernrH.^'^ 'r Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. Incorporation of the Citn of ^aiah and another (1989) JTcC612 held that “itl firmly established interpretationthat revenue ofrecords documentare notnot beingdocumentsa documentof title,of titleand isthenotquestiona qLstionof °3497hi Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC of Hl^^ jamabandi arc riot proof l^u,„ and others (f^)J 11 SCl Jo. this Court tu^ld LhnI "(he entries in the revenue papcu, by no ofthTpMndff"''''''^'' basis for declaration of ittle^infavour

¶545

I-ct cunLra, learned olaiiding Counsel tor the respondents while reiterating fhe averments made in the petitions, denied all the contentions made by appellants, He submits that the respondents filed No.3 Adangal for^the year 2007-2008 for Fasli No. 1422 relating to the year 2012-2013. It cannot be disputed that by the year 2007-2008 the name of appellants or ancestors were not mentioned in the village account, either as pattadars or occupiers of land by any means. 10(1) account copy shows that it is Parasaiah Kunta Manyam and the institution is the Patta holder, but not Karri Parasaiah Family members. Their names were not mentioned in 10(1) account at any point of time. Had the names of family members of Karri Parasaiah were mentioned in any village account for any extent of land in S.No. 1004 at any point of time, the appellant could have

¶546

¶547

secured them very easily and filed them to show to the Court, as to enjoyment of the land by such persons. It was not in dispute that notices were issued to some of^the appellants, even on 25.4.2011 and some of the appellants received the same and some of them issued reply notices. So, the entries got made in village account No.3 after making claim' by the 2"'^ respondent by way of notice^tothe appellants, cannot be given weight. Even prior to issuance^of such notices by the 2"^ respondent, claiming the land. demanding the appellants to vacate, the names of appellants were appeared in any of the village accounts. Learned Standing Counsel mainly contended that when the names^of the third parties are going to be entered into the village account, it is the duty of revenue authorities to cause notices to the previous land holders, whose names were recorded in the village account, calling for objections^and make enquiry.

¶548

She further contended that the documents filed by the appellants are concerned, pattadar pass books^ortitle deeds filed by some of the appellants are all of recent origin. There is no evidence on record that whether any enquiry

¶549

¶550

was conducted by the revenue authorities by issuing^notices to the institution, whose name was previously appearing as pattadar for a long time, before issuing such pattadar pass books or title deeds in favour of the some of the appellants. For the lirst time, the names of appellants were incorporated in No.3 Adangal for the years 2012-2013. It has no value at all Tf '’cems that Lhc appcllanls must Pave managed the revenue authorities for incln.sion of their names showing the documents available with them behind back of the respondents.

¶551

In a case reported in Sri Santhi Nikethan, a Partnership Firm rep., by its Managing Partner R.K.Jayaraman v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment) Departments’^ wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that:

¶552

In the present case, it is not denied that the properties in question, which the petitioners claimed as owners, have since been brought on the register maintained in terms of Section 43 of the Endowments Act. The entire case of the petitioners is that they^have been cnjogiiiy the property in question as owners with effect from 1990 onwards and the ownership was being asserted on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by their erstwhile vendors. However, we

¶553

’ W.A.No,888 and 899 of 2022, dated 23.09.2023

¶554

¶555

are of the opinion that once the property has been registered and brought on the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, the writ Court could not have directed the registration of the property in the name of the petitioners in the light of the existence^of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is in that^context that the writ Court proceeded to hold that disputed questions of fact arise in the writ petitions, which^could only be gone into before the civil Court”.

¶556

On a perusal of the entire material available on record this Court observed that, it is not the case of the appellants that, any one of the appellants or their predecessors or vendors got any ryotwari patta under^Inams Act. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reportedⁱⁿ Peddinti Venkata Muraliranganatha Desika Iyengar and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another**, in para No. 17 the Apex Court observed that legislature sought to destroy the effect of the law in Inams Abolition^Act on erroneous belief or assumption that it did not bind^the religious or charitable institutions or endowment or^thatthe holder of land did not acquire title or no patta was granted to him and the land was still with the institution and threated the occupant as encroacher. It was further^held

¶557

'’AIR 1996(1) ALT 33 (sc)

¶558

¶559

that Section 76, Explanation-II to Sec.2(22) of the Act to that extent are invalid and unconstitutional.

¶560

In the present set of cases, it is not the case of the appellants fhat Rojdwari patta was graiilrd under Inams Act to any of the appellants or to their predecessor or transferors. Section 76 has no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the case of the appellants.

¶561

It is the contention of the appellants that in W.P.No.32266 of 2011 this Court was directed the Endowment Department to obtain declaration that they are owners of the said property and therefore the respondents have to file applications under Section 87 of Endowment Act, but filed applications under Section 83 of the Act 30/1987, which are not maintainable. Until and unless, it is held that the 2"*^ respondent is owner of the property or title holder, the appellants cannot be termed as encroachers.

¶562

¶563

In a case of Peddinti Venakta Murali

¶564

Ranganatha Desika Iyengar vs. Govt, of Andhra

¶565

Pradesh"-’, wherein the HonTole Apex Court held that :

¶566

In Boppudi Punniah & Ors. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Varu & Ors. [(1963) 2 A.W.R. 214j, the applicability^{oftheActtoservice} mams held by office holders enjoying the inams and the right^tograntof ryotwari patta had fallen for consideration. The Division^{Bench,afteran} exhaustive review of the Act, held that service inams^formed a considerable proportion of inams in the Andhra area,^be it in ryotwari or zamindari area. There is no Justiifcation for attributing^{ignorancetothe} legislature of the existence of this class of inams.^{Thereis,therefore,no} reason to suppose that the legislature thought of keeping^outofthe purview of the Inams Abolition Act this class of inams,^{especiallythenthe} intendant of the Act was to abolish and convert inam^{landsintoryotwari} lands. The absence of a provision enabling the authorities^concerned to insist upon performance of service could not lead, to the conclusion that all service inams were excluded from the purview of^the enactment. Service inams also must be held as inams governed by^{thisenactment.} The ryotwari patta should, therefore, be held to have^{beenissuedtothe} service holders.

¶567

(ii) In another case of G. Satyanarayana vs.

¶568

Government of Andhra Pradesh^, wherein it was held^that:

¶569

From the respective pleadings and the stands taken^bythem,the following Points emerge for consideration :

¶570

(a) What documents constitute title for lands?

¶571

(b) Whether the entries in the revenue records constitute^{conclusiveproof} of title and if not whether they have evidentiary value^{indeterminationof} title?

¶572

Whether multiple registered sale transactions reflecting^longstanding possession give rise to a presumption of title to the^property?

¶573

Whether the entries in Resurvey and Resettlement^{Register(RSR)and} Town Survey Land Register (TSLRj are conclusive in^{determiningtitle?}

¶574

Whether eviction proceedings under the 1905 Act^{canbeinitiatedwhen} there is a bonafide title dispute.

¶575

1996 LawSuit(SC) 94 '’2014LawSuit (Hyd) 556

¶576

¶577

in the person.-, m in.i;uaion<- in uccor-i-,,, - , T determine und grant them pattas in the prescribed fo rm. ^ ^ nmti^n backdrop of the land tenures and the evolution of ' tTrinh7' H °J ‘'^^^bras (1907 Edition) succinctly dhtwith ZZtfXnIfZZ ZZZT ■>/"» 27. Issue of pattas (1) Form ofpatta The Form of patta is given in the Manual of Village Accounts. shoulThave on unnecessary to issue fresh patta. Each^{ryl7°''^} should have one original patta containing a detailed list of the fields co^pnsiMg his holding as it stood when the patta was drawn up The pZTilfStfir^"'" which have taken place in his holding or in the revenue payable bg him. In the event betiowcvei,convenientuj numeiousto issue achanges fresh one.taking place in the original^ ^patta it mau^ (3) (Omitted as not relevant) (4) Entry of names in Joint-patta The entries of eyZZZZZZZ '» It!!’ ^ff^^l°f’'^9istry as pattadar : The registered pattadar of a eTT! ^^regards Government, the responsible proprietor of the ryotwan lands registered in his name in the Land Register o/ the ^ tther! ^bey pass from his possession by sale for arrears^orinsome dw of h bands which a ryot has left waste will not^bestruck out of his patta on that account. ^^i'uck

¶578

mdu of T alienate : A registered pattadar may, so far as Government are concerned, alienate, sublet, mortgage sell hdldi ^^berwise dispose of the whole or any portion of his ’ holding, provided always : (1) that unless and until ouch trausfe/ot disposal IS registered in the Land Register of the district, the registered pattadar remains liable for the assessment and such other leg^l charges fZZ tlZb T ^'^biosal had oLrrcd. Td HriZt oT ^be transferee takes the land subject to payment of any arrears of assessment or other legal charges

¶579

¶580

due on it, and to the same obligations and conditions,^{specialorgeneral,} as the transferor held it on.

¶581

Effect of absence of pattadar: Mere prolonged absence^{of non} occupation does not invalidate the right of transfer^{justmentioned.}

¶582

Patta not affected by improvements: A registered^{pattadarimproving} his holding by constructing a tank on it, digging a^{well,orerecting} buildings on it, is not chargeable with any additional^{assessmentforsuch} improvements; but he is not entitled to claim, as of^{right,anyreductionof} assessment on account of the space occupied by such^{improvements.}

¶583

Pattadars obligation: The registered pattadar of^{a fieldorholdingis} bound to pay the fixed assessment on it, whether cultivated,^wasteor fallow, in the presented instalments, unless it be^{remittedinaccordance} with the rules laid down in Standing Order No. 13.

¶584

Currency of patta : A patta retains its validity^{untilsupersededbyone} of later date. It does not necessarily require renewal^{fromyeartoyear.}

¶585

Mineral right of pattadar: The registered pattadar^{isentitledtowork} minerals on his land, but is liable to pay therefor^{aseparateassessment} in addition to the usual assessment for surface cultivation.

¶586

Joint-pattadars rights to receipt book: Sub-receipt^{booksshouldbe} given to all holders of land on joint-pattas who want^{them.Theentriesin} these sub-receipts will be transferred to the principal^{receiptbookwhenit} IS produced for the purpose before the village officers^{bythepossessor.} The sub-receipts will be in the same form as the receipt,^butwillnot mention the extent of the land on account of which^{paymentismade.}

¶587

Tree-patta: For the rights and restrictions implied^{inatree-pattavide} Standing Order No. 18, paragraph 2, clause b(ii).

¶588

It is thus deducible from the above that the British^{treatedpattaasa} document whereunderpossessory right with absolute rights^toalienate, sub-let, mortgage, sell, bequeath or otherwise dispose^ofinany manner he likes were conferred on the pattadar.

¶589

As regards the pattas granted under the A.P. (Andhra^Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948, the A.P. (Andhra Area)^{Inams(Abolitionand} Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the Hyderabad^{AbolitionofInams} Act, 1955, and the Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Act, the^{pattadars(persons} in whose favour pattas are granted by way of regrant)/occupancy^right certiifcate holders and their successors-in- interest,^holdtitle. Title will be divested from them in the event of transfer of these^{propertiesthrough} legally recognised modes. In case of persons claiming^{rightsunderthe} Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950,^{protectedtenants} and land holders on whom ownership rights are conferred^{holdtitletothe} lands over which such righm are conferred.

¶590

¶591

(iii) In another case reported in Raavi Satish vs.

¶592

State of Andhra Pradesh^, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that ;

¶593

to ReUg^ous and ChLuU. EndoLZrTmma unZ^ I TZ ZnZunZ"Tl falling unde^ U,. thaUhey Ze fnZZ bTZZlnsdZZn'^ ^ -W not SiiSHS^itlSSr

¶594

(iv) In a case of Nagar Palika Jind v. Jagat Singh^, wherein, the Apex Court held that the onus to prove title to the property in question, was on the plaintif.f In a suit for rejectment based on ittle it was incumbent on the part of the Court of appeal first to record a ifnding on the claim of ittle to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff The Court ISi_ bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit”

¶595

It is settled law that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only h3/^ adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it,

¶596

’ 2012 LAwSiiit(A) 887 * 1995 3 see 426

¶597

¶598

irrespective of question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. So, even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiffs own title, plaintiff must be non-suited. The plaintiffs have to show, independent of the entries^thatthe plaintiffs predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased.

¶599

Now the point that arisen for determination is:

¶600

a) whether learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain^ordecide the rights of parties, so also decide the genuineness of the documents relied by the appellants, purportedly issued by the Revenue Authorities, in the absence of Revenue authorities?

¶601

In a case of “Kommineni Narendra v. Ravela Rama Mokana Rao @ Ramalingaiah and others”^, wherein this Court has discussed the case decided by the Hon hie Apex Court in “Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another”^°, wherein it was held as follows:

¶602

“It was pertinently added that this exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court ivould he subject to two limitations. First, ‘the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act^havenot

¶603

MANU/AP/0122/2023 = C.R.P.No. 2200 of 2022 in 20! 1(9) see !26

¶604

¶605

been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted m conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The second is as regards the exact extent to which the powers of statutory tribunals are exclusive'. The question us lo whether any particular case falls under the first or the second of the above categories would depend on the purpose of the statute and its general scheme, taken in conjunction with the scope of the enquiry entrusted to the tribunal set up and other relevant factors.”

¶606

This Court in Knmmitytni Natundra'^ exse, relied on another decision of the HonTale Supreme Court reported in “Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Beeranguda, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District V. Sai Krupa Homes, Karimnagar and Others’>ii and opined that the civil suit is maintainable to decide the issue as to whether the property belongs to endowment Department or others.

¶607

And also while relying on a case of €<'Anatn Educational Charitable v. The Assistant Commissioner”^'^, the learned Single Judge of this Court categorically discussed the power of endowments tribunal to decide certain disputes as per Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987, which reproduced hereunder;

¶608

II 2010 see Online AP 352

¶609

12 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/169654277/= W.P.No.l7713 of 2017

¶610

¶611

“Section 87(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction^shallhave the

¶612

power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner^{tothepersonconcerned,} to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the questionla) Whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment;

¶613

(b) Whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment:

¶614

¶615

(d) Whether any property is a specific endowment;

¶616

(e) Whether any person is entitled by custom or othenvise^toanyhonour, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter;

¶617

(f) Whether any institution or endowment is wholly^{partlyofasecularor} religious character and whether any property is given^{whollyorpartlyfor} secular or religious uses; or

¶618

(g) Where any property or money has been given for^{thesupportofan} institution or endowment which is partly of a secular^characterand partly of a religious character or the performance^{ofanyserviceorcharity} connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and^{partlyofareligious} character or where any property or money given is appropriated^partlyto secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what^{portionofsuch} property of money shall be allocated to secular or^{religioususes;}

¶619

(h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from^{thefamilyofthe} founder of an Institution or Endowment.

¶620

On a perusal of the above citations, it is required^to be examined whether the reliefs claimed in O.As can be granted by the Tribunal^. In the instant case, the^similarissue is involved, which is a mixed question of fact, to^decidewith regard to title dispute between the parties. Therefore the learned tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the^same.

¶621

¶622

In view of the above foregoing dis cussion and following the decision of M/s Sri Santhi Nikethan’s case (supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals

¶623

while granting liberty to the api^ellants.

¶624

Accordingly, all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of setting aside the common order dated 30.09.2016 passed in O.A.Nos.407, 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 425, 426, 427, 428, 430, 431, 432 and 433 of 2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani Further, liberty is granted to the appellants to file a civil Suit before Civil Court having uilginal jurisdiction ao arc available under law withm a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, both the parties in all these Appeals are directed to maintain status quo, existing as on today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶625

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

¶626

Date: 12-01-2024 Gul

¶627

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶628

¶629

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶630

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 182, 129, 152. 159. 166. 167. 174, 176, 177. 178, 180, 181. 183. 320, 342. 345. 381. 606. 620. 717, 816, 827. 835 and 857 of 2017

¶631

Date . 12.01.2024

¶632

Gvl

Malle Naga Subbamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malle Naga Subbamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Sambrajyam, Vs The State of A.P.

K.S.S.B Syed Pervejuddin Hussaini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

D. Dandu Srinivasa Kumara Varma, W.G. Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept., Hyd and 6 Othrs

S.Venkateswarlu S/o Bala Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Venkataiah, Nellore Dist and 12 Others Vs Prl Secy for Home, Hyd and 6 Others