Gullapalli Sankar Vs the Assistant Commissioner & Another

SRI SITA RAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, YANAMADALA VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.VENKATA REDDY, S/O. JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, GUNTUR.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set aside the decree and order passed in OA NO. 1022 of 2014 dated 22-8-2017 on the file of the AP. Endowments tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 1712 OF 2017

¶21

2

¶22

VS,J

¶23

CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶24

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 operation of decree and order in 0.A.No.1022 of 2014, dated 22.8.2017, on the file of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District, pending disposal of the appeal and pass

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CMAMP 1882 OF 2017

¶26

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

¶27

IA NO: 3 OF 2017(CMAMP 2097 OF 2017

¶28

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

¶29

IA NO: 4 OF 2017(CMAMP 2209 OF 2017

¶30

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 receive the copies of the petition in WPMP No.43063/2014 in WP No.27169/20174 along with the documents annexeed therein

¶31

IA NO: 5 OF 2017(CMAMP 2336 OF 2017

¶32

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 extend the interim order granted in CMAMP No.1712/2017 in CMA No.1007/2017 dated 15.09.2017 pending disposal of the appeal

¶33

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶34

1.KALAPALA DOONDI MAHARAJ

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.GP FOR ARBITRATION

¶37

2.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region.

¶38

3.ELEVATED AS JUDGE

¶39

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1008/2017

¶40

3

¶41

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶42

Between:

¶43

YARLAGADDA VENKATA NARASIMHAPRASAD, VJA, KRISHNA DIST, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGEDA BOUT 48 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.74-13/1-2C, PLOT NO.273, NEW RTC COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶44

...APPELLANT

¶45

AND

¶46

THE ASST COMMR ENDOWMENTS DEPT GUNTUR DIST ANR, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶47

SRI SITA RAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, YANAMADALA VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.VENKATA REDDY, S/O. LAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, GUNTUR,

¶48

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶49

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set-aside the decree and order passed in 0.A.No.1021 of 2014, dated 22.8.2017, on the file of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District and pass

¶50

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 1713 OF 2017

¶51

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 operationofdecree and order in OA No.1021 of 2014, dated 22.08.2017, on the file of the A.P.Endowment Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District, pending disposal of the appeal and pass

¶52

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CMAMP 1883 OF 2017

¶53

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

¶54

IA NO: 3 OF 2017(CMAMP 2098 OF 2017

¶55

4

¶56

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶57

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

¶58

IA NO: 4 OF 2017(CMAMP 2337 OF 2017

¶59

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 extend the interim order granted in CMAMP No.1713/2017 in CMA No.1008/2017 dated 15.09.2017 pending disposal of the appeal

¶60

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶61

1.KALAPALA DOONDI MAHARAJ

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶63

1.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region.

¶64

2.ELEVATED AS JUDGE

¶65

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1009/2017

¶66

Between:

¶67

GONDI PARANDHAMAIAH & ANOTHER, -

¶68

...APPELLANT

¶69

AND

¶70

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANOTHER, -

¶71

SRI SITA RAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, YANAMADALA VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶72

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶73

Appeal Under Section_____against orders

¶74

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 1714 OF 2017

¶75

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 operation of decree and order in OA No. 1023 of 2014 dated 22-

¶76

5

¶77

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶78

8-2017 on the file of the A.P. Endowment Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Guntur District, pending disposal of the appeal and pass

¶79

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CMAMP 1881 OF 2017

¶80

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

¶81

IA NO: 3 OF 2017(CMAMP 2099 OF 2017

¶82

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

¶83

IA NO: 4 OF 2017(CMAMP 2333 OF 2017

¶84

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 extend the interim order granted in CMAMP No.1714/20174 in CMA No.1009/2017 dated 15.09.2017 pending disposal of the appeal

¶85

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶86

1.SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

¶87

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶88

1.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region.

¶89

2..

¶90

3.ELEVATED AS JUDGE

¶91

The Court made the following:

¶92

6

¶93

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶94

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶95

All these appeals arise out of the common order dated 22.08.2017, passed by the Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Amaravathi,m Pedakakani, in O.A.Nos.1021, 1022 and 1023 of 2014.. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide the appeals by way of a common judgment.

¶96

The appellant in C.M.A.No.1007 of 2017 is the respondent in O.A.No.1022 of 2014; the appellant in C.M.A.No.1008 of 2017 is the respondents in O.A.No.1021 of 2014 and the appellants in C.M.A.No.1009 of 2017 are the respondents in O.A.No.1023 of 2014. The respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur and respondent No.2 – Sri Sita Rama Swamy Temple, Yanamadala village, Prathipadu mandal, Guntur District are the petitioners before the Tribunal.

¶97

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶98

The petitioners have filed the aforementioned original applications under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 against the respondents, directing them to vacate and handover the petition schedule properties to the 2^nd petitioner temple. The petition schedule properties involved in the applications filed by the petitioners is to an extent of Acs.6.00 cents and Acs.1.57 cents in S.No.885 of Vedurupavuluru village, Mustabada gram panchayat, Krishna district and the land to an extent of Acs.7.27 cents in S.No.895 situated in Vedurupavuluru village, Mustabada Gram panchayat, Krishna district. The said applications were contested by the respondents by filing their respective counter affidavits.

¶99

7

¶100

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶101

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶102

O.A.No.10231/2014 and O.A.No.1022/2014:

¶103

1) Whether the respondent is an encroacher U/s 83 of Act, 30/1987 and if so liable to be evicted?

¶104

2) To what relief?

¶105

O.A.No.1023/2014:

¶106

1) Whether the O.A. schedule does not belongs to the 2^nd applicant?

¶107

2) To what relief?

¶108

During the course of trial, in support of its case, the 2^nd petitioner’s executive officers were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The respondents in O.A.Nos.1021 and 1022 of 2014 got examined themselves as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B12. The 2^nd respondent in O.A.No.1023 got examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B13.

¶109

The Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by the witnesses and relying upon the documentary evidence put forth before it, came to the conclusion that petition schedule properties belong to the 2^nd petitioner temple and that all the respondents are encroachers under Section 83(1) of Act 30 of 1987. Accordingly, the applications filed by the petitioners were allowed by way of the impugned common order dated 22.08.2017 with costs, directing the respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule properties within one month to the 2^nd petitioner and also to pay Rs.15,000/- per year per acre from the date of petition till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the petition schedule properties. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents/appellant have filed these appeals.

¶110

8

¶111

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶112

Heard M/s. Kalapala Doondi Maharaj, learned counsel for the appellants in C.M.A.No.1007 and 1008 of 2017 and Mr. Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the appellants in C.M.A.No.1009 of 2017, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Mr. Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments

¶113

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellants though has raised several contentions against the common order passed by the Tribunal, he raised a serious ground that the impugned common order came to be passed by the Tribunal consisting of a Chairman, who demitted the office on 31.07.2017 by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.898, Revenue (Endowments-I) department, dated 31.08.2017 and inasmuch as the Tribunal has heard the matter on 07.08.2017 and passed final orders on 22.08.2017, the same clearly would be Non est for lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, as learned Standing Counsel could not get the information whether the Chairman of the Tribunal who passed the common order dated 22.08.2017 was continued even after his retirement on 31.07.2017 by virtue of any temporary extension, this Court has directed the 1^st respondent herein and the Registry to furnish appropriate record whether any extension was granted in favour of the Presiding officer who rendered the common order dated 22.08.2017.

¶114

Accordingly, the Administrative Officer, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, vide letter bearing Rc.No.A3/03/2026, dated 04.02.2026 stated that the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.570 Revenue (Endowments-I) department, dated 23.05.2016 posted Sri. P. V. Ramana Rayulu, II Additional Chief Judge as Chairman to the A.P. Endowments Tribunal on deputation for a period of three years and accordingly, he assumed charge to the post of Chairman on 06.06.2016. The Government, vide

¶115

9

¶116

VS,J

¶117

CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶118

G.O.Rt.No.312, Law (LA&J-SC.F) department, dated 28.12.2016 issued notification of retirements of Judicial service officers wherein, at Sl.No.17, the date of retirement of Sri. P.V. Ramana Rayulu was mentioned as 31.07.2017. Subsequently, Sri. P.V. Ramana Rayulu is said to have addressed a letter to the Government vide Rc.No.A3/188/2017, dated 31.07.2017 stating that the common High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana vide Roc.No.9170/2016-B, dated 25.07.2017 accorded permission to him to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. Thus, Sri. P.V. Ramana Rayulu functioned as Chairman of the Tribunal up to 31.08.2017. The Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.898 Revenue (Endowments-I) department, dated 31.08.2017 observed that Sri. P.V. Ramana Rayulu, who retired on 31.07.2017 cannot continue as Chairman of A.P. Endowments Tribunal. Accordingly, the Government ordered that Sri. P.V. Ramana Rayulu is deemed to have demitted the office from the afternoon of 31.07.2017.

¶119

Admittedly, Sri.P.V. Ramana Rayulu assumed charge to the post of Chairman of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal on 06.06.2016 and as per G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 28.12.2016, Sri.P.V. Ramana Rayulu is supposed to retire on 31.07.2017. However, it can be seen that Sri.P.V. Ramana Rayulu continued as Chairman of the Tribunal till 31.08.2017 by relying on the order dated 25.07.2017 in Roc.No.9170/2016-B of the common High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. However, the same was clarified by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.898 dated 31.08.2017 stating that Sri.P.V. Ramana Rayulu has retired on 31.07.2017 and cannot be continued as Chairman of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. Since Sri. P.V.Ramana Rayulu retired from judicial service on 31.07.2017, he ceased to hold the office of Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, and thus lacked jurisdiction to pass any orders

¶120

10

¶121

VS,J CMA_1007 of 2017 and batch

¶122

thereafter. As the impugned common order was passed on 22.08.2017, which was post-retirement, the same is non est and void ab initio, being without authority of law, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶123

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the impugned common order dated 22.08.2017 is set-aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the A.P. Endowments Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the case, uninfluenced by the observations already made in the impugned common order dated 22.08.2017.

¶124

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶125

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶126

Date:05.02.2026. Gss

Gullapalli Sankar v. the Assistant Commissioner & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gullapalli Sankar v. the Assistant Commissioner & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Randhi Apparao Vs Union of India

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Netapalli Pravalika & 4 Others

Sri.K.Sai Kumar Vs Sri.S.Suresh Kumar

M Padma Vs Union of India

G. Chinna Kullai Reddy Alias Kullai Reddy Vs Union of India

Ch. Ratnaraju Vs Union of India