Remanded

Smt.Reddy Varalakshmi v. The Asst.Commissioner

Telangana HC14 Nov 2012CMA/447/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Tribunal's order declaring the appellant an encroacher on temple land. The High Court held that the record lacked sufficient evidence on ownership, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after recording evidence from both sides, and maintained status quo.

What did the court decide?

The Order dated 09.03.2011 in O.A. No.1925 of 2010 is set aside and remanded back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh after affording opportunity to both sides to lead evidence regarding ownership of

Smt.Reddy Varalakshmi Vs The Asst.Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.447 OF 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This C.M.A. is filed assailing the order dated 09.03.2011 in O.A. No.1925 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hydereabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants in the O.A.

¶5

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the O.A.

¶6

3. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that the respondent is in illegal occupation of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.59 cents in Survey No.236/3, situated in Balaga Rural, Srikakulam District belongs to the second applicant – Sri Bhadramma Ammavari Temple (hereinafter referred to as ‘the schedule land’) without any valid lease from the competent authority, and as such, she is an encroacher. Despite demands to vacate the same, the respondent is continuously in illegal occupation of the schedule land by squatting over it. Further, the respondent has not been paying any rent to the second applicant temple and she fell in arrears of rent. If the schedule land is leased out as per Rules, it will fetch huge amount of rent. Therefore, the applicants filed O.A. No.1925 of 2010 before the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) (for short ‘the Act’) seeking a direction to the respondent to vacate and hand over the schedule land.

¶7

4. Respondent filed counter denying the claim of the applicants and

¶8

stated that she purchased the schedule land from one Khaspa Narayana Rao and others, vide registered sale deed bearing No.730/2002 dated 19.03.2002 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same by paying land revenue to the Government. Further, the respondent’s vendors delivered possession of the schedule land through Court Amin as per the orders in A.S. No.2/1966 dated 03.04.1969. As such, she is absolute owner of the schedule land and she is not an encroacher, as claimed by the applicants.

¶9

5. On behalf of the applicants, the Manager of the second applicant temple was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, she herself got examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.5.

¶10

6. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence on the record and the submissions made on either side, allowed the O.A. terming the respondent as encroacher as defined under Section 83 of the Act and directed the respondent to vacate and hand over the schedule land within one month by written intimation to the applicants. Assailing the same, the respondent preferred this C.M.A.

¶11

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record.

¶12

8. During the course of their argument with reference to the impugned judgment, it is transpired that Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the second applicant temple viz., Ex.A.1 - notice issued to the respondent, dated 13.09.2007, Ex.A.2 - postal acknowledgment,

¶13

dated 17.09.2007, Ex.A.3 - copy of property register, dated ‘nil’, Ex.A.4 - copy of sketch of site, dated ‘nil’ and Ex.A.5 - copy of S.L.R., dated ‘nil’, whereas Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked on behalf of the respondent viz.,

¶14

Ex.R.1 - original sale deed, executed by Khaspa Narayana Rao and others in favour of the respondent, dated 19.03.2002, Ex.R.2 - certified copy of decree in A.S. No.2 of 1966, dated ‘nil’, Ex.R.3 - pattadar passbook, dated 03.04.1969, Ex.R.4 - original land revenue receipts numbering 2, dated 04.05.2002, and Ex. R.5 - original Court delivery warrant, dated ‘nil’.

¶15

9. Out of Exs.A.1 to A.5, marked on behalf of the second applicant temple, Ex.A.3 - copy of property register discloses that the schedule land was endowed in favour of the second respondent temple towards performing puja activities and the same is based on village gossip (hearsay). Except Ex.A.3 - copy of property register, no other document reveals that the schedule land belongs to the second applicant temple. Further two temples are stated to be existing in Balaga, Srikakulam

¶16

viz.,1) Sri Bhadramma Ammavari Temple, having an extent of Ac.1-59 cents land in Survey No.236/3, and 2) Sri Ashwarama Ammavari Temple, having an extent of Ac.1-77 cents in Survey No.263. However,

¶17

Ex.R.2 – decree in A.S. No.2 of 1966 is silent as to the temple in which the priest has to render Archakatvam service.

¶18

10. It is contended on behalf of the second applicant temple that as per the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 46 of the Act, the particulars entered in the property register maintained under Section 43 of the Act shall be presumed as genuine, until contrary is

¶19

established.

¶20

11. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the information shown in Ex.A.3 - property register is based on the gossip of the village which is hearsay and that Ex.R.2 – decree in A.S. No.2 of 1966 is silent as to the temple in which the priest has to render Archakatvam service. Therefore, from the contents of Ex.A.3 - property register, it cannot be concluded that the schedule land belongs to the second applicant Temple. To decide the said issues, some additional evidence is required. In the circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to examine some more material to come to a right conclusion by affording opportunity to both sides to lead oral and documentary evidence.

¶21

12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to be remanded back to the lower Tribunal for disposal afresh according to law. Accordingly, the O.A. is remanded back to the lower Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the same afresh after affording opportunity to bodth sides to lead evidence with regard to ownership of the schedule land, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order is hereby set-aside. Meanwhile, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till disposal of the O.A.

¶22

13. The C.M.A. is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

Date:14.11.2012

¶24

________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J

¶25

Stp

Smt.Reddy Varalakshmi v. The Asst.Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Reddy Varalakshmi v. The Asst.Commissioner

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

Kunchala Venkata Rao Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Hameedunnisa Begum (Died) Per Lrs. Vs B.S. Sarvotham

Smt. Katta Anitha Kumar, Vs Sri. Gorli Srinvasa Rao

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.Sarwari Begum

K. Krishnaiah Vs Santosh Mukin Bupnoor

Smt.Ramavath Kamsalya Vs Mr.S.Jagna