Dismissed

Abraham Memorial Educational Committee, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Sept 2012WA/1009/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner had not proved title over the land despite pending proceedings. Consequently, it dismissed the writ petitions seeking to quash recovery notices and reinstate school recognition, directing the petitioner to seek a title declaration in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Interim order staying dispossession was vacated. No relief granted to the petitioner regarding school recognition or land possession.

Abraham Memorial Educational Committee, Vs The Government… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT: THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

W.P.No.12811 of 2010 and W.A.No.1009 of 2012

¶7

W.P.No.12811 of 2010 Between:

¶8

P. Victor Abraham President Abraham Memorial Educational Committee, Mission Compound, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

And

¶11

The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole & another.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

W.A.No.1009 of 2012

¶14

Between:

¶15

Abraham Memorial Educational Committed, rep., by its President Dr. P. Victor Abraham, Mission Compound, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

¶16

… Petitioner

¶17

And

¶18

The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, School Education Department, Hyderabad & two others.

¶19

… Respondents

¶20

This Court made the following:

¶21

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶22

W.P.No.12811 of 2010 and W.A.No.1009 of 2012

¶23

COMMON ORDER:

¶24

W.P.No.12811 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner inter alia praying for writ of Mandamus to declare notice, dated 02.06.2010, of the 2^nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’), and consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Ac.8.70 cents in Sy.No.232 of Kandukur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that alleging that he is in unlawful occupation of an extent of Ac.8.70 cents in Sy.No.232 of Kandukur Village of Prakasam District, an enquiry was made by the concerned Local Officer, under Section 7 of the Act. Consequently, a notice, dated 02.06.2010, under Section 8(1) of the Act was served on the petitioner directing him to surrender possession of the above said land to the Local Officer, failing which further action will be taken. Aggrieved by the said notice dt.2.6.2010, the petitioner filed the writ petition, i.e. W.P.No.12811 of 2010. This Court on 08.06.2010, while admitting the writ petition, in W.P.M.P. No.16143 of 2010 granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question and directed the petitioner not to create any third party rights by entering into any sale agreement, mortgage, alienate or change the land

¶26

use.

¶27

Subsequently, the petitioner has filed another writ petition, being W.P.No.32942 of 2011 to declare the proceedings, dated 15.12.2010, issued by the 2^nd respondent therein in rejecting the petitioner’s application, dated 01.08.2009, for renewal of recognition to the petitioner - school for the years 2009-10 to 2013-14, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.32942 of 2011, it is stated that the petitioner runs three schools in the said premises and prayed for extension of time for recognition to classes VI to X for the year 2009-10 to 2013-14 and that an application was filed before respondent No.2 therein, on 12.08.2009, for grant of extension of temporary recognition. The 2^nd respondent in turn transmitted the same to the Deputy Educational Officer, Kandukur, for resubmission of the proposals along with the required documents. The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, vide his letter, dated 26.11.2010, submitted a report stating that the proposals for grant of extension of temporary recognition to the petitioner – school, were returned to the management on 29.06.2010, as the management has not filed required documents. Felling aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in not granting extension of temporary recognition to the petitioner - school, earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.27887 of 2010, before this Court and in WPMP.No.35564 of 2010 filed in the said writ petition, this Court passed interim order on 03.12.2010 directing the 2^nd respondent therein to dispose of the petitioner’s application, dated 01.08.2009, for renewal of recognition of Mercy English Medium High School, Kandukur, Prakasam District. In pursuance of the interim order, dated 03.12.2010, the Deputy Educational Officer, submitted a report on 14.12.2010 to the 2^nd respondent therein stating that the Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, addressed a letter not to grant recognition. The 2^nd respondent accordingly passed proceedings, dated 15.12.2010, wherein he has informed the Correspondent/President of the petitioner- school that it is not feasible for grant of extension of temporary

¶28

recognition to classes VI to X (E.M.) from 2009-2010 onwards in respect of Mercy English Medium High School, Kandukur, till the ownership right over the land admeasuring Ac.8.70 cents in Sy.No.232 of Kandukur village is decided by the Civil Court.

¶29

Thus, aggrieved by the said proceedings, dated 15.12.2010, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32942 of 2011. In the said Writ Petition, the respondents filed a counter affidavit. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition, it appears that a suit in O.S.No.74 of 1999 was filed by three persons, including the petitioner, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, for permanent injunction, and the learned Judge while granting the order of injunction against defendant No.1, declined to grant against defendant Nos.2 to 4, and that a finding was recorded to the effect that the suit was decreed against defendant No.1 – Property Association of Baptist Churches only and not against defendant Nos.2 to 4. It further appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner therein fairly conceded before the Hon’ble Single Judge, that the judgment in O.S.No.74 of 1999 has become final, as no appeal was preferred against it. Since no appeal was preferred against the judgment in O.S.No.74 of 1999 and there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the 2^nd respondent therein, the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to take necessary steps for regularizing its possession over the property and then seek renewal of recognition.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner in W.P. No.32942 of 2011 filed W.A.No.1009 of 2012.

¶31

It appears to us that notice, dt.2.6.2010, issued under Section 8 of the Act has already been served on the petitioner, but he has not yet taken any steps except filing the present writ petition being W.P.No.12811 of 2010.

¶32

In our opinion, since the petitioner has not yet proved his title in respect of the property in question, and steps have already been taken by the respondent authorities in the matter for recovery of possession under the provisions of the Act, until the premises stands in the name of the appellant – petitioner, the petitioner cannot get any recognition in respect of the

¶33

school. Therefore, the application, dated 01.08.2009, made by the writ petitioner, for renewal of recognition to the petitioner – school, for the years 2009-10 to 2013-14, is nothing but premature, as the petitioner is unable to prove his right over the title and the property in question.

¶34

In these circumstances, we dismiss the Writ Appeal No.1009 of 2012, finding no illegality or irregularity in the order, dated 17.07.2012, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.32942 of 2011.

¶35

So far as W.P.No.12811 of 2010 is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and since remedy to the petitioner lies only before the Civil Court to prove his title in the matter in question and not the Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that writ petition is not a proper remedy and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order, dated 08.06.2010, in WPMP.No.16143 of 2010 in W.P.No.12811 of 2010 stands vacated. However, this order will not stand in the way of the appellant/petitioner to apply before the Civil Court and if such a suit is filed, the Civil Court shall take necessary steps in accordance with law, without being influenced by the orders passed by this Court.

¶36

_____________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶37

Date: 10.09.2012 ES

Abraham Memorial Educational Committee, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham Memorial Educational Committee, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director Vs P. Raghu

The Depot Manager, Vs K. Krishna Murthy

G. Sreeramulu S/o G. Siranna Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh

Narinder Kumar Dhingra Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board