Dismissed

V.Seetharamaswamy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary

Telangana HC6 Nov 2008WA/1404/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition challenging an eviction notice issued for lease expiry and arrears of maktha. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the notice was valid under the Endowments Act and the petitioner had no right to possess the property post-expiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

V.Seetharamaswamy, Vs Government of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1404 of 2008

¶5

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/07/2008 in W.P.No: 10576 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.)

¶6

Between:

¶7

V.Seetharamaswamy, S/o.Late V.Lakshmi Narasimham, R/o.Koduru village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna.

¶8

APPELLANT

¶9

A N D

¶10

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, yderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Government of A.P.Hyderabad. 3. The Dy.Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The Asst.Commissioner, Endowments, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5. The Manager, Sri Lokeswara and Janardhana, Swamyvari Devasthanam, Koduru Village, Mudenepalli Mandal, Krishna District.

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.VIDYASAGAR

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: V.T.M.PRASAD,

¶15

STANDNG COUNSEL

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶18

W.A.No.1404 OF 2008

¶19

JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶20

The appellant is writ petitioner. He filed W.P.No.10576 of 2005 to declare the action of the 5^th respondent in issuing Notice No. Nil/05 dated 12-042005 in Form No. I read with Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowment-IV) Department dated 24-05-2003 as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and set aside the same.

¶21

2. It is stated in the impugned notice that the petitioner had taken lease of the land admeasuring Ac.5-15 cents in Sy.No.335 situate at Koduru Mandal, Mudinepalli Mandal of Krishna District for a period of three years for the lease period 2002-2003 to 20042005 and has been cultivating the same. It is further stated in the impugned notice that petitioner agreed to pay 55 bags of paddy every year towards Sarva Maktha and pay 1/3^rd of the Sarva Maktha in case of cultivation under Dalva. The lease period expired by

¶22

31-03-2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the abovementioned land after clearing the arrears of maktha to the extent of 161 bags for the above said lease period, failing which appropriate action would be initiated against him under Section 83 of the Act 30/87. Questioning the same, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.10576 of 2005.

¶23

3. By order dated 21-07-2008 a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

¶24

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments

¶25

for Respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5.

¶26

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned notice, seeking eviction of the petitioner after clearing the arrears of maktha for the above mentioned lease period, does not refer to either Rule 5 or a notice in Form I with reference to the said G.O. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge erroneously considered the said notice as if it was issued under Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.379 Revenue (Endowment-IV) Department dated 24-05-2003 and adjudicated the matter in favour of the 5^th respondent.

¶27

6. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The finding of the learned Single Judge

¶28

is as follows:

¶29

“I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that as the petitioner’s tenure of lease has, admittedly expired, he has no right to be in possession of the property in question. All that respondent No.5 has done is to issue the impugned notice to hand over possession consequent on expiry of the lease period and clear the arrears. I do not, therefore, see any illegality in respondent No.5 issuing such a notice. The petitioner, who squatted on the property, after expiry of the lease period, is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in the absence of any semblance of right, whatsoever, to hold possession after expiry of the lease period.”

¶30

7. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that the learned Judge has considered the legality and validity of the impugned notice and refused to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as admittedly issuance of such notice cannot be found fault with and it cannot be said that the notice is contrary to law.

¶31

8. It is stated that the appellant has paid Rs.27,210/- towards part of the lease amount. A submission has been made before the learned Single Judge that there is a standing crop in the land and the appellant/writ petitioner may be permitted to harvest the same before the land is handed over to the 5^th Respondent and that request had been considered permitting the

¶32

5^th respondent to harvest the standing crop in the presence of the appellant/writ petitioner and adjust the sale proceeds of the crop towards the arrears payable to the 5^th respondent-institution.

¶33

9. We do not know under what circumstances such a request has been made by the appellant himself seeking permission to harvest the existing crop before handing over possession of the land. It appears that the said order is on consensus at the instance of the appellant. If that be so, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order, more so, when the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶34

10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 6_^th November 2008 Lrkm

¶36

........REGISTRAR

¶37

To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {JA}

V.Seetharamaswamy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Seetharamaswamy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Mustaffudin Khan Vs Y. Ganna Reddy

P.Ramudu Ankiraopalli Kollapur Vs the Se Apseb Mb.Nagar and Another

Sri Raza Ali Vs The Deputy Registrar/ Arbitrator

Mohd. Altaf Vs The Spl. Court under Aplg (P) Act rep. by its Registrar

Thatha Subba Rao , Shiva Vs The Superintendent of Police

Commr of Mcch. Hyd and Anr. Vs M/S.Uni Ads Pvt. Ltd. Hyd