The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Mopuri Hemavathi

Mopuri Hemavathi, W/o Mopuri Seetharamireddy, Present Address 1604 Gardner Park DR Lawrenceville GA300043 USA, rep by Gajjala Madhu Sudhana Reddy S/o Gajjala Verna Reddy, aged 45 years R/o D No 7/555 Jaya Nagar Colony, Chinnachowk Kadapa City^YSRDistrict.

¶15

...RESPONDENT N0.1/WRIT PETITIONER

¶16

The Thasildar, Kadapa Mandal YSR District

¶17

The Sub Registrar, Kadapa Urban YSR District

¶18

...RESPONDENT^

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order made in WP No.23856/2020, dated.23.09.2021 pending the writ appeal. —

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V R REDDY KOWURi^

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

APHC010216642022

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Vi

AT AMARAVATI

[3508]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

npfOpA^y THE fiprnday of may TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 457/2022

¶32

Between:

¶33

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, and Others

¶34

...APPELLANT(S)

¶35

AND

¶36

Mopuri Hemavathi and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶39

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.VR REDDY KOWURI

¶42

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶43

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the appellants and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri,^{learnedcounsel} appearing for the respondents.

¶44

The 1®* respondent (herein after referred to as ‘writ petitioner’) herein had purchased Ac.0.05 cents of land in Sy.No.687/2 in Ward No.32, Srinivasa Nagar, Chinna Chowk Village Fields, Kadapa

¶45

2

¶46

Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, by way of a registered^{deedofsale,dated} 16.04.1999, registered as document No. 1397/2020. The^{titletothisland} is traced from a registered deed of sale, dated 23.02.1984. The^petitioner had mortgaged this property as security for a loan^{withStateBankof} Hyderabad. As steps were being taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act for sale of this property, for recovery^{oftheloanofthe} petitioner, she had sold the plot for clearing the liability of the bank. However, the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Urban) had refused^toreceiveand register the said deed of sale on the ground that the^{subjectlandfalls} within a list, communicated by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 02.12.2016, stating that the land is^endowment land, belonging to Sri Mutharasupalli Rama Swamy temple,^and had been included in the list of endowment properties under Section 22-(1)(c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

¶47

Aggrieved by the said refusal of the Sub-Registrar^toregister the document and by the inclusion of the subject property in the list of endowment properties, the petitioner has approached^thisCourt, by way of W.P.No.23856 of 2020 for setting aside the list of endowment property communicated by the Commissioner, Endowments to the Sub-Registrar and with a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar^{toentertainthe} deed of sale for registration of the land.

¶48

3

¶49

The case of the writ petitioner was that the said land is private land on which there have been various transactions, under registered deeds of sale since 1984. The writ petitioner^{contendedthat} the land is not endowment property and the inclusion of the land as endowment property is without any basis and there are^norecordsor documents to show that this land belongs to the said temple.

¶50

The Endowment Authorities contended that an extent of Ac.1.73 cents of land in Sy.No.687/2 belongs to Sri Mutharasupalli Rama Swamy temple and the said property was included in the list of endowment properties communicated to the registration^{authoritiesunder} Section 22-(1)(c) of the Indian Registration Act. It^{wouldfurthercontend} that the title of the temple can be ascertained from the resurvey records wherein the name of the temple had been included in the pattadar column.

¶51

The writ petitioner contended that such inclusion in^theRSR document does not confer any title and relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31851 of 2012. The petitioner^alsorelied upon another order of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29506 of 2013, which is said to have been passed following the earlier order in W.P.No.31851 of 2012. It would also submitted by the writ petitioner that the appeal filed against this judgment in WA(SR).No.15261 of 2014 was

¶52

4

¶53

dismissed by a Division Bench at the interlocutory stage itself and consequently these orders had become final.

¶54

The learned Single Judge held that the claim of the Endowment Department, over the land, is based on an entry in the pattadar column in the adangal and such an entry is^{notsufficienttomake} out a case of title, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.No.31581 of 2012 and W.P.No.29506 of 2013. The learned Single Judge also observed that the contention of the endowment authorities that the property has been included in the register, maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, cannot be accepted as a copy of the register was not filed before the Court. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the property in W.P.No.31851^of2012andthe property in the present Writ Appeal, before him, are^{oneandthesame.}

¶55

On the basis of these facts, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 23.09.2021, had allowed the writ petition^{withadirectionto} the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Urban) to receive the deed of sale that may be presented by the 1®* respondent and to register the same subject to the compliance of the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned Single Judge had^alsoobserved that the direction, in the writ petition, would not^{declare thetitleofthe1®‘} respondent in respect of the property.

¶56

5

¶57

Aggrieved by this order, the State and the Authorities under the Endowment Department, who were arrayed as respondents 1 to 5 in the writ petition, had filed the present Writ Appeal.

¶58

The learned Government Pleader, for Endowments while reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge has also produced the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987, relating to Sri Mutharasupalli Rama Swamy temple. An extent of Ac. 1.73 cents of land in Sy.No.687/2, is included apart from other lands in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act. This register was prepared and finalized on 20.10.2020.

¶59

A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by his order, dated 20.12.2012 and 31.12.2012, in W.P.No.31851 of 2012, had not accepted the claim of the temple over the said land. However, the writ petitioner therein was directed to approach the A.P Endowment Tribunal for a decision on the right and title of the temple over the said land. It appears that no such application was filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.31851 of 2012.

¶60

6

¶61