Allowed

Sri Shahi Masjid Committee v. the Assistant Commissioner and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2024CMA/898/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of civil miscellaneous appeals against an Endowments Tribunal common order directing occupants of shops near a bus stand, claimed as temple land, to vacate. Counsel submitted the matter was covered by an earlier common judgment; both sides consented. The High Court allowed the appeals in terms of that judgment.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed of in terms of common judgment in CMA No. 182 of 2017 & Batch dated 12.01.2024, setting aside the Tribunal order, liberty to file civil suit within two months, status quo until then.

Sri Shahi Masjid Committee Vs the Assistant… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 873. 874. 875, 876, 877, 878, 879. 882. 884. 886. 889. 890. 897. 898. 907 & 908 OF 2017

¶7

CMA. No. 873 of 2017:

¶8

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 836 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 55 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶14

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶15

S. Karimulla,, S/o KhaderValli, Muslim, aged about 42 years. Cycle Shop, Near R.T.C. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa^District...

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO; 1464 OF 2017)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.836/2010 [Old OA No.55/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶19

CMA. No. 874 of 2017:

¶20

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^theDecree and common Order passed in O.A. No. 824 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 39 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶21

¶22

Between:

¶23

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur,^{Y.S.R.KadapaDistrict}

¶24

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶25

AND

¶26

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶27

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶28

S. Basha, S/o Rahamathulla, aged 55 yrs. Tiffin Hotel Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶30

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1465 OF 2017)

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.824/2010 [Old OA No.39/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶32

CMA. No. 875 of 2017:

¶33

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 827 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 43 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶34

Between:

¶35

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶36

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶37

AND

¶38

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶39

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶40

S. Dastagiri, S/o Golan Sab, aged 61 yrs. Music^{Center,NearRTC.Bus} Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶41

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶42

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1466 OF 2017)

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.827/2010 [Old OA No.43/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶44

CMA. No. 876 of 2017:

¶45

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 830 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 47 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶46

Between:

¶47

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶48

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶49

AND

¶50

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa 2. The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶51

S. Madar Sab, S/o Jamal Sab, aged 62 yrs. Military^{Hotel,NearRTC.Bus} Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶52

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶53

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1467 OF 2017)

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.830/2010 [Old OA No.47/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶55

CMA. No. 877 of 2017:

¶56

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 832 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 50 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶57

Between:

¶58

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶59

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶60

AND

¶61

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶62

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶63

S. Mahaboob Saheb, S/o Khasim Saheb, aged 60 yrs.^{TeaStallBunk,Near} RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶64

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶65

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1468 OF 2017)

¶66

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.832/2010 [Old OA No.50/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶67

CMA. No. 878 of 2017:

¶68

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 826 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 42 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶69

Between:

¶70

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶71

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶72

AND

¶73

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa 2. The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶74

S. Dastagiri, S/o Chinna Jamal Sab, aged 61 yrs. Silver Saman Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶75

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶76

-S'—

¶77

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1469 OF 2017)

¶78

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.826/2010 [Old OA No.42/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶79

CMA. No. 879 of 2017:

¶80

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 825 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 40 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶81

Between:

¶82

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶83

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶84

AND

¶85

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa 2. The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶86

S. Jahid, S/o Mohamed Husen, aged 44 yrs, A-1 Tea^{Stall,NearRTC.Bus} Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶87

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶88

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1470 OF 2017)

¶89

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree^and Common^{Orderpassedin} OA No.825/2010 [Old OA No.40/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶90

CMA. No. 882 of 2017:

¶91

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 823 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 38 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶92

— 6 —

¶93

Between:

¶94

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶95

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶96

AND

¶97

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa 2. The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶98

K.S. Mahamed Rafi, S/o Madar Saheb, aged 40 yrs,^{LakshmiSaiNews} Agency & Book Stall, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶99

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶100

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1474 OF 2017)

¶101

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.823/2010 [Old OA No.38/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶102

CMA. No. 884 of 2017:

¶103

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 829 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 46 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶104

Between:

¶105

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶106

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶107

AND

¶108

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa 2. The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶109

S. Rahamathulla, S/o Husen Sab, aged 62 yrs. Mutton Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶110

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶111

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1477 OF 2017)

¶112

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.829/2010 [Old OA No.46/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶113

CMA. No. 886 of 2017:

¶114

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 828 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 44 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶115

Between:

¶116

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶117

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶118

AND

¶119

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa 2. The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶120

S. Husen Sab, S/o Khasim, aged 42 yrs. Tailor Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶121

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶122

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1480 OF 2017)

¶123

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.828/2010 [Old OA No.44/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶124

CMA. No. 889 of 2017:

¶125

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 833 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 52 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶126

-S''

¶127

Between:

¶128

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶129

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶130

AND

¶131

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶132

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶133

S. Husen Sab, S/o Mabu Sab, aged 76 yrs, B.M.S. Musical Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶134

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶135

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017fCMAMP NO; 1484 OF 2017)

¶136

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.833/2010 [Old OA No.52/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶137

CMA. No. 890 of 2017:

¶138

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 835 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 54 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶139

Between:

¶140

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶141

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2 AND

¶142

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶143

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶144

S. Chan Basha, S/o Basha, aged 47 yrs. Banana Fruit Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶145

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶146

— 9-

¶147

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1485 OF 2017)

¶148

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.835/2010 [Old OA No.54/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶149

CMA. No. 897 of 2017:

¶150

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 834 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 53 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶151

Between:

¶152

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶153

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶154

AND

¶155

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶156

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶157

S.A. Jabbar, S/o Mabu Sab, aged 58 yrs. Cycle Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶158

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶159

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1499 OF 2017)

¶160

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.834/2010 [Old OA No.53/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶161

CMA. No. 898 of 2017:

¶162

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^{theDecreeandcommon} Order passed in O.A. No. 831 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 48 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶163

— lo-

¶164

Between:

¶165

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶166

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶167

AND

¶168

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶169

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶170

S. Moulali, S/o Lai Peera, aged about 44 yrs. Cool Drink Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶171

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶172

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1499 OF 2017)

¶173

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.831/2010 [Old OA No.48/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶174

CMA. No. 907 of 2017:

¶175

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^theDecree and common Order passed in O.A. No. 838 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 59 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶176

Between:

¶177

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶178

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶179

AND

¶180

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶181

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶182

S. Chand Basha, S/o Basha, aged 48 yrs. Motor Repairs Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶183

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶184

— 11

¶185

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP NO: 1513 OF 2017)

¶186

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.838/2010 [Old OA No.59/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶187

CMA. No. 908 of 2017:

¶188

Appeal under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987) against^theDecree and common Order passed in O.A. No. 837 of 2010 ( Old O.A. No. 57 of 2004) by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi-Peda Kakani, dated^26-07-2017.

¶189

Between:

¶190

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Mydukur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶191

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.2

¶192

AND

¶193

The Asst Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa

¶194

The Manager, Sri Bheemeswara Swami Temple, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District

¶195

S. Jilani Basha, S/o Not Furnished, aged 54 yrs. Motor Repairs Shop, Near RTC. Bus Stand, Mydukur (V & M), Y.S.R. Kadapa District...

¶196

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENT N0.1

¶197

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP. NO: 1514 OF 2017)

¶198

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Common Order passed in OA No.837/2010 [Old OA No.57/2004] by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani, dated: 26.07.2017.

¶199

Counsel for the Appellant in all appeals: Sri Sahebgari Dada Hayatnadim

¶200

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in all appeals: Sri G. Ramana Rao, Standing Counsel for Endowments, Rayalaseema Region

¶201

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 in all appeals: None Appeared

¶202

The Court made the following:

¶203

¶204

APHCO10238032017

¶205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶206

[3310]

¶207

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶208

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

¶209

PRESENT

¶210

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶211

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 873. 874. 875. 876. 877. 878. 879, 882, 884, 886. 889. 890. 897. 898. 907 and 908/2017.

¶212

Between:

¶213

The President, Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Ysr Kadapa^Dist ...APPELLANT AND The Asst Commr Endowments Dept Kadapa 2 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others

¶214

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶215

l.SAHEBGARI DADA HAYATNADIM

¶216

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶217

1..

¶218

2.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)

¶219

The Court made the following:

¶220

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶221

All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against^{thecommonorder} dated 30.09.2016 passed in O.A.Nos.823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani.

¶222

¶223

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

¶224

The facts in these appeals are similar and identical,^thereforeCMA No.873 of 2017 is taken as lead case, and the facts^{thereinarereferredto} for convenience.

¶225

All the applications were filed by the 2"'^ petitioner,^who is 2"^ respondent herein under Section 83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool seeking^to evict the 1^St respondent who is 3^^^ respondent herein from the respective schedule properties. In all the applications, the property claimed^{wasmentionedin} the formats submitted by the petitioner/2"^! respondent in a similar way that it is in S.No.620-2A and 620-B of out of an extent of Ac.0.39 cents plinth area Ac 0.01 cents except in O.A.No.833/2010^{locatednearRTCbus} stand, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa within specified boundaries. In such formats submitted by the temple (2"‘i petitioner therein) it was mentioned that such encroacher kept a bunk and running business and also residing at the said property from so many years by encroaching^the site without paying any amount to the temple. In spite of notices issued, they have not vacated the respective properties.

¶226

The respondent, who is 3''^ respondent herein filed^countersin all the applications before the Tribunal inter alia contended that the schedule property is part and parcel of Muslim burial ground in existence

¶227

¶228

since times immemorial. There are Muslim Tombs dating back to century. The petition schedule property is now being managed by Shahi Masjid Committee, a registered Committee at Mydukur and is nearby the property. There are structures viz., rooms were constructed by the said Shahi Masjid Committee 50 years ago and in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same on behalf of Muslims of Mudukur. The 1st respondent therein is in possession of the property^{asalicenseeofthesaid} Shahi Masjid Committee. Gram Panchayat records also show that they are Maseedu roomulu and they are collecting property tax from the Shahi Masjid Committee. The temple or endowments authorities never raised any objections during the past more than 50 years and they^havedenied the right in the property claimed by the temple.

¶229

The appellant who is 2"'^ respondent before the^{Tribunalhasfiled} counter in all the cases and contended that in the year 1976, the State Government of A.P., through Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu being Land Acquisition Officer, acquired the land in^{S.No.620fullextentof} Ac 0.74 cents and in S.No.629 full extent of Ac 1.18 cents of Mydukur village from Sri Bheemeswaraswamy temple, Mydukur for the purpose of construction of RTC bus stand therein. It is further contended that the subject rooms of these O.As have been installed within the premises of the said burial ground by the Mosque Shahi Masjid, which is continuing from the Ist quarter of 20^ century. The rooms connected^{withO.AsareMaseed} roomulu let out to the l^t respondent in each case. Further, technically. though acquired the land from Bheemeswaraswamy temple, but never

¶230

¶231

acquired Muslim burial ground in which the subject^rooms are situated. The APSRTC constructed a bus stand in or around the year 1976 and kept Muslim burial ground and subject rooms as they are and a protection wall has been constructed on the west of the same. Since the land was acquired by Government of A.P., Sree Bheemeswaraswamy temple cannot claim any right. Hence, prayed to dismiss the O.As.

¶232

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

¶233

1. Whether the temple is the owner of the schedule property and the l®t respondent is an encroacher of tlie same and R3 Maszid Committee has no right over the property and the P2(R2) temple is entitled to evict the 1®* respondent and any others^claimedunder R1 & R3 if in possession of property u/s 83 of the Act as encroachers?

¶234

1. To what result?

¶235

During the course of trial, the Manager i.e., the 2"^ petitioner, who is 2^'i respondent herein was examined as PW. 1 and^{theExecutiveOfficerof} 2^^ petitioner was subsequently examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.PI to Ex.P8 in all the applications. On behalf of the respondents,^RW.l to RW.23 were examined and got marked Ex.Rl to Ex.R100 in all cases. Report of the Advocate Commissioner RW.23 was marked as Ex.Cl. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence of both parties,^{theTribunalhasallowed} all the applications with costs and directed the respondents^inallcasesto vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule properties within One month, removing the structures therein to the 2'^'* petitioner and also further held that in the event of failure of the respondents, the 2"'i

¶236

¶237

¶238

petitioner is at liberty to take possession of the property along with structures. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeals came to be filed. 9. The pleadings which are cited by the appellant in C.M.A.No.873 of 2017, the same are adopted by the other appellants in other civil miscellaneous Appeals i.e., CMA Nos., 874, 875, 870, 877, 878, 879, 882, 884, 886, 889, 890, 897, 898, 907 and 908 of 2017.

¶239

Heard Sri Sahebgari Dada Hayatnadim, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments (Rayalaseema Region) appearing for the respondents. 11. 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 Ss 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,^isasfollows:

¶240

i) 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 ifle of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani. Further, liberty is granted to the appellants to file a cwil Suit before Civil Court having original jurisdiction as are available under law within 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. ”

¶241

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

¶242

¶243

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.

¶244

Accordingly, ail the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in terms of the common Judgment in CMA No. 182 of 2017 & Batch, dated 12.01.2024.

¶245

The Registry is directed to attach a copy of the common judgment in CMA No. 182 of 2017 & Batch, dated 12.01.2024 to this order.

¶246

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these appeals^shall stand closed.

¶247

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

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Member, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, at Amaravathi - Peda Kakani.

¶252

One CC to Sri Sahebgari Dada Hayatnadim, Advocate [OPUC]

¶253

One CC to Sri G. Ramana Rao, SC for Endowments [OPUC]

¶254

Three CD Copies,

¶255

will's?S of common judgment in CMA. No. 182 of 2017 & batch, dated 12-01-2024)

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/03/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT

CiVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 873. 874, 875. 876. 877, 878, 879. 882. 884, 886. 889. 890. 897. 898. 907 & 908 OF 2017

¶261

DISPOSING OF THE CMA’S., in terms of common judgment in CMA 182 of 2017 & Batch

¶262

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶263

4 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 182. 166, 167, 174, 176. 177. 178. 180, 181. 1 345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835 an C.M.A. No.182 of 2017	129, 152. 159. 83. 320. 342. d 857 of 2017
Between:
# Nathani Ravindrudu, S/o Vekataswamy Aged about 56 years, Cultivation, R/o Srinagar, Addanki, Prakasam District, State of A.p. And	Appellant
The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District. Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta, Addanki Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. Rep. by its Executive Officer. $ 1. 2.	Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 12.01.2024
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMA	DHA RAO
Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? 1.	Yes -
2. W'hether the copies ofjudgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals	Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship vdsh to see the fair copy of the Judgment?	Yes -

¶264

DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶265

¶266

THE HON’BLE DR, JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶267

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

¶268

C.M.A. No,182 of 2017

¶269

% 12.01.2024

¶270

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

¶271

Appellant

¶272

And

¶273

$ 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶274

Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta, Addanki Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. Rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶275

Respondents

¶276

! Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Mallik

¶277

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

¶278

Head note : ?Cases referred :

¶279

1963(2) AndhWR 214

¶280

2014 LawSuit (SC) 3

¶281

3.W.A.N0.888 and 899 of 2022, dated 23.09.2023

¶282

AIR 1996 (1) ALT 33 (sc)

¶283

¶284

1996 LawSuit (SC) 94

¶285

2014 LawSuit (Hyd) 556

¶286

2012 LAwSuit(A) 887

¶287

1995 3 see 426

¶288

MANU/AP/0122/2023 = C.R.P.No. 2200 of 2022

¶289

2011(9) see 126

¶290

2010 see Online AP 352

¶291

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/169654277/= W.P.No.^17713of2017

¶292

¶293

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶294

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

¶295

COMMON JUDGMENT;

¶296

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, 428, 430, 431, 432 and 433 of 2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani.

¶297

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

¶298

The facts in these appeals are similar and identical, therefore CMA No. 182 of 2017 is taken as lead case,^andthe facts therein are referred to for convenience. 4. 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/ 1987 of the Commissioner Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad. The said Kunta is spread over in an extent^of Ac 24.97 cents in S.No.632 of Addanki which is meant for

¶299

¶300

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 12.11.2009 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.

¶301

The 2’^<^ petitioner issued registered notices dated 25.4.2011 to the respondents in all the cases, asking to

¶302

¶303

show their rights in the land othei-wise legal action^wouldbe 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^andthe land of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No. 1004 was owned and enjoyed by the family of Karri Parasiah and their lineal decedents, who partitioned the said property and they acquired title by prescription and they 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 process of law, is 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.

¶304

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^landswere

¶305

¶306

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 2nd 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"d 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 not a public charitable institution and the said land is a private charitable endowment.

¶307

¶308

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^cattleand bullocks, their family had excavated a kunta called Tarasaiah 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 32.80 cents was owned by the family of Karri Parasiah, which is ancestral property. The said family 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 of Karri Parasaiah partitioned the property of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No. 1004 and they wereⁱⁿ 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

¶309

¶310

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^todismiss the petitions.

¶311

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

¶312

1. Whether the 2*'^ applicant is not a public but a private entity and the petition schedule property is a private property outside the purview of the Act 30/1987 as contended by the respondent?

¶313

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

¶314

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

¶315

1. To what result?

¶316

During the course of trial, the Executive Officer i.e.. the 2"'i 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

¶317

¶318

applications with costs and directed the respondentsⁱⁿ 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 miscellaneous appeals came to be filed.

¶319

The pleadings which are cited by the appellantⁱⁿ C.M.A.No.182 of 2017, 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, 181, 183, 320, 342, 345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827,⁸³⁵ and 857 of 2017.

¶320

Heard Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel appea.ring^for the appellants and Mrs. Padmavathi Padnavis, leaimed 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 the tribunal ought to have seen that against Sy.No.^1004-2B and Sy.No. 1004/2C the appellants’ name have been incorporated and as such admittedly the appellants^are in

¶321

¶322

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 tliat 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^filed and 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

¶323

¶324

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

¶325

We now come tn the knotty problem as to who should be regarded as the holder of the inam in regard to service inams. The learned Advocate-General, appearing for the institutions, maintains^{thatthisclass} of inams fall 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 inamdar at the time of the commencement of the Act was according to him, this Act deals only with classes (i) and (Hi) mentioned above. ( 14 j THE reason why the learned 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 insist upon performance of service and that when once a ryotwari patta is issued the pattadar cannot be deprived of the patta. He also submits that the expression^'inamdar is inappropriate with reference to an office-holder, who is not an absolute 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 covers all types of inams not excluding service inarm^andthat it is not correct to argue that the Act is inapplicable to inams pertaining to services. Of course, he contends that the temple should^bedeemedtobe the holder of service inams. We will deal with it later^on. { 15 ) WE are inclined to accept the arguments of Sri Bhujanga Rao as representing the correct law. We are not persuaded that the points presented by the learned a.dvocate-General are substantial. We are unable to agree that the .Legislature was either ignorant of or overlooked the existence of the inams of this type which undoubtedly are in yeat number in the Andhra area. In fact, it may not be incorrect to say that this category of inams forms a considerable proportion of^theinams in the andhra area, be it in ryotwari or zamindari area. There is no justification" for attributing ignorance to the Legislature of the existence of this class of inams. (16) WE must proceed on the assumption that the Legislature^wasaware of the fact that there are large number of inams belonging to this category. If 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 inams, especially when the intendment of the Act was to abolish and convert inam 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 ail 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^toinsert a clause that the patta is issued to individuals as incumbents of a particular service and that the inam. could be enjoyed only so long as service is rendered. That may safeguard amply the interests of^{theinstitution.Even} if it were not sufficient, it could only be stated^that it is a lacuna in the enactment and it is for the Legislature to fill it up and this Court cannot do anything in the matter. Moreover, if the argument of^{thelearnedAdvocate-}

¶326

1963(2) AndhWR214

¶327

¶328

General were to prevail, 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^be held as inams 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-holders in 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^wasmadeand 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

¶329

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

¶330

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

¶331

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 Amra reported in AIRl 959 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:

¶332

“the onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff. 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 plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or

¶333

-2014LawSuit (SC) 3

¶334

¶335

investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit." This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corvoration of the^{CituofBangalorev.M.} Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that “it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law ” In Guru Amarht Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that “that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that “the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. ”

¶336

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents while reiterating the 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 3'ear^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 anj^ 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^landin S.No.1004 at any point of time, the appellant could^have

¶337

¶338

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.

¶339

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

¶340

¶341

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 first time, the names of appellants were incorporated in No.3 Adangal for the years 2012-2013. It has no^valueat all. It seems that the appellants must have managed^the revenue authorities for inclusion of their names showing^the documents available with them behind back of the respondents.

¶342

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)

¶343

Department^”, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that:

¶344

“11. 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 enjoying 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

¶345

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

¶346

¶347

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^inthe 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 offact arise in the writ petitions, which^could only be gone into before the civil Court”.

¶348

On a perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, it is not the case^ofthe appellants that, any one of the appellants or their predecessors or vendors got any ryotwari patta under^Inams Act. As per decision of HonTole 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

¶349

''air 1996(1) alt 33 (sc)

¶350

¶351

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

¶352

In the present set of cases, it is not the case^ofthe appellants that Roytwari patta was granted under Inams^Act to any of the appellants or to their predecessor or transferors. Section 76 has no application to the facts^ofthe case. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable^tothe case of the appellants.

¶353

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.

¶354

¶355

In a case of Peddinti Venakta Murali

¶356

Ranganatha Desika Iyengar vs. Govt, of Andhra

¶357

Pradesh^, wherein the Hon Tale Apex Court held that :

¶358

In Boppudi Punniah & Ors. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Varu & Ors. 1(1963) 2 A.W.R. 214], the applicability of the Act to service inams held by office holders enjoying the inams and the irght to grant of ryotwari patta had fallen for consideration. The Division Bench, after an exhaustive review of the Act, held that service inams formed a considerable proportwn of inams in the Andhra area, be it in ryotwari or zamindari area. There is no Justification for attributing ignorance to the legislature of the existence of this class of inams. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the legislature thought of keeping out of the purview of the Inams Abolition Act this class of inams, especially then the intendant of the Act was to abolish and convert inam lands into ryotwari lands. The absence of a provision enabling the authorities^concernedto 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^beenissued to the service holders.

¶359

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

¶360

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

¶361

From the respective pleadings and the stands taken by them, the following Points emerge for consideration :

¶362

(a) What documents constitute title for lands?

¶363

(b) Whether the entries in the revenue records constitute conclusive proof of title and if not whether they have evidentiary value in determination of title?

¶364

Whether multiple registered sale transactions reflecting long standing possession give irse to a presumption of title to the property?

¶365

Whether the entries in Resurvey and Resettlement Register (RSR) and Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) are conclusive in determining title?

¶366

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

¶367

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

¶368

¶369

This Act was made for the abolition of minor imams, including charitable and religious service imams Under Section 4 of the Act, in case of inam land in a ryotwari or Zarnindari village, a person or institution, holding such land as inamdar on the date of commencement of the Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof. Under Section 7. the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on application by a person or institution, after serving notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons or institutions interested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving^{themareasonable} opportunity of being heard and examining all the land^{recordsdetermine} the persons or instituUons in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and grant them, pattas in the prescribed form. Having traced the backdrop of the land tenures and the evolution of ryotwari system, the stage is set for considering what^{arethedocuments} that constitute ownership/title to land. The Board Standing Orders (BSO) of the Board of Revenue of Madras (1907 Edition) succinctly^dealtwith the rights and obligations under a patta. Paras 27 an.d 28 of the BSO included in Part III Title to Land read :

¶370

Issue of pattas (1) Form of patta The Form of patta is given in the Manual of Village Accounts.

¶371

(2) Renewal of patta As a rule, fresh pattas need only^beissuedwhen desired by the ryots concerned. When the holding of a ryot has undergone no change, it is obviously unnecessary to issue fresh patta. Each ryot should have one original patta containing a detailed list of the fields comprising his holding as it stood when the patta was drawn up. The pattas offuture years should show only the changes^{whichhavetaken} place in his holding or in the revenue payable by him. In the event, however, of numerous changes taking place in the original patta, it may be convenient to issue a fresh one.

¶372

(3) (Omitted as not relevant) (4) Entry of names in joint-patta The entries of names in a joint-patta will be made without reference to the extent of land enjoyed by each pattadar.

¶373

(1) Effect of registry as pattadar : The registered pattadar of a ryotwari holding is, as regards Government, the responsible proprietor of the ryotwari lands registered in his name in the Land Register of the district, until they pass from his possession by sale for arrears or in some other legal manner. Lands which a ryot has left waste^{willnotbestruck} out of his patta on that account.

¶374

Conditions on which pattadar may alienate : A registered pattadar may, so far as Government are concerned, alienate, sublet, mortgage, sell, give, bequeath, or otherwise dispose of the whole or any portion of his holding, provided always : (I) that unless and until such transfer or disposal is registered in the Land Register of the district, the registered pattadar remains liable for the assessment and such other legal charges due on the land, just as if no such transfer or disposal had occurred; and (2) that when the transfer is registered, the transferee^takestheland subject to payment of any arrears of assessment or other legal charges

¶375

¶376

due on it, and to the same obligations and conditions, special or general, as the transferor held it on.

¶377

Effect of absence of pattadar: Mere prolonged absence of non occupation does not invalidate the right of transfer just mentioned.

¶378

Patta not affected by improvements: A registered pattadar improving his holding by constructing a tank on it, digging a well, or erecting buildings on it, is not chargeable with any additional assessment for such improvements; but he is not entitled to claim, as of right, any reduction of assessment on account of the space occupied by such improvements.

¶379

Pattadars obligation: The registered pattadar of a field or holding is bound to pay the fixed assessment on it, whether cultivated,^wasteor fallow, in the presented instalments, unless it be remittedⁱⁿ accordance with the rules laid down in Standing Order No. 13.

¶380

Currency of patta : A patta retains its validity until superseded by one of later date. It does not necessarily require renewal from year to year.

¶381

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

¶382

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 receipt book when it is produced for the purpose before the village officers by the possessor. The sub-receipts will be in the same form as the receipt,^butwillnot mention the extent of the land on account of which payment is made.

¶383

Tree-patta: For the rights and restrictions implied in a tree-patta vide Standing Order No. 18, paragraph 2, clause b(iij.

¶384

It is thus deducible from the above that the British treated patta as a document whereunderpossessory right with absolute rights to alienate, sub-let, mortgage, sell, bequeath or otherwise dispose of in any manner he likes were conferred on the pattadar.

¶385

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

¶386

¶387

(iii) In another case reported in Raavi Satish vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that :

¶388

“In cases of alienation of properties which are claimed to belong to Religious and Charitable Endowments failing under A.P Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, or Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995, unless relevant material is available before the Registering officers to show that they are owned by such Institutions, registration of the documents shall not be refused. Even if evidence is available to show that the properties sought to be alienated belong to the Institutions referred to above, the Registering officers shall receive the documents, pass orders assigning reasons for rejection and communicate the same to the parties concerned, who shall be free to assail such orders by availing the remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the Act.

¶389

(iv) In a case of Nagar Palika Jind v. Jagat Singh^, wherein, the Apex Court held that “the onus to prove^titleto the property in question, was on the plaintif.f In a suit for rejectment 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 plaintiff The Court^is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit”

¶390

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

¶391

’2012LAwSuit(A)887 * 1995 3 see 426

¶392

¶393

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 that the plaintiffs predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased.

¶394

Now the point that arisen for determination is:

¶395

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?

¶396

In a case of “Kommineni Narendra v. Ravela

¶397

Rama Mohana Rao @ Ramalingaiah and others*’^, wherein this Court has discussed the case decided by the Honhle Apex Court in “Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another”^°, wherein it was held as follows:

¶398

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

¶399

’ MANU/AP/0122/2023 = C.R.P.No. 2200 of 2022 10 2011(9) see 126

¶400

¶401

been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not^acted in 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 as to 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,^takenin conjunction with the scope of the enquiry entrusted^tothe tribunal set up and other relevant factors.”

¶402

This Court, in Kommineni Narendra’s case, relied on another decision of the HonTole Supreme Court reportedⁱⁿ "Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Beeranguda, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District V. Sai Krupa Homes, Karimnagar and Others”^^ and opined that the civil suit is maintainable to decide the issue as to whether the property belongs to Endowment Department or others.

¶403

And also while relying on a case of “Anam 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, v/hich reproduced hereunder:

¶404

]] 2010 see Online AP 352

¶405

12 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/169654277/= W.P.No.l7713^of2017

¶406

¶407

“Section 87(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction^shallhavethe power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question-

¶408

fa) Whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or

¶409

endowment:

¶410

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

¶411

fc) Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or religious endowment;

¶412

(d) Whether any property is a specific endowment;

¶413

(e) Whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, 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;

¶414

(f) Whether any institution or endowment is wholly partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or

¶415

(g) Where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular^characterand partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property of money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;

¶416

(h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.

¶417

On a perusal of the above citations, it is required^to be examined whether the reliefs ciaim.ed in O.As can be granted by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the similar^issue 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.

¶418

¶419

In view of the above foregoing discussion aaid following the decision of M/s Sri Santhi Nikethan’s case (supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals while granting liberty to the appellants.

¶420

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^CivilCourt having original jurisdiction as are available under^lawwithin a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt^ofa 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.

¶421

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

¶422

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶423

Date: 12-01-2024 Gvl

Sri Shahi Masjid Committee v. the Assistant Commissioner and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shahi Masjid Committee v. the Assistant Commissioner and 2 Others

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

Kudumula Bala Venkata Reddy, S/o.K.Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

Penupotula Sudharsana Babu at P.Sudarsana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Presdesh

Komera Ramanjamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondeti Lakshmi Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The President Sri Shahi Masjid Committee, Ysr Kadapa Dist Vs the Assistant Commissioner, Kadapa Dist and Two Others

A.Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy. Home Dept. and 2 Ors.