Dismissed

M. Nagaraju S/o late M.Oblesappa v. The Commissioner of Endowment Department

Telangana HC5 Jan 2012WP/18722/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, claiming lease by succession, challenged the temple's alienation of land by seeking a mandamus to consider his representation for sale at market value. The court held that leases of endowed land are automatically cancelled under Section 82 unless the lessee is declared a landless poor person, and thus dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No direction was granted for alienation of the land in the petitioner's favour.

M. Nagaraju S/o late M.Oblesappa Vs The Commissioner of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18722 of 2007

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1 This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in alienating the land in Sy.No.430-2B admeasuring Ac.6-59 cents belonging to Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple in Kalyandurg Polam, Ananthapur District pending consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.08.2007, without following due process of law as illegal, unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶4

2 It is the case of the petitioner that the late father of the petitioner was cultivating the land belonging to the third respondent – temple covered under Sy.No.430-2B admeasuring Ac.6-59 cents in Kalyandurg Polam, Ananthapur District and was paying lease amounts to the temple without any default. It is stated that after the death of his father, his mother and himself are cultivating the land by paying the lease mounts to the temple without committing any default. It is further stated that when the respondents tried to dispossess him he filed suit in O.S.No.152 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg

¶5

and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 06.02.2007.

¶6

3 In this Writ Petition it is the grievance of the petitioner that he submitted a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 on 16.08.2007 requesting them to sell the aforesaid land to him at the market value. In spite of the same, the respondents are not considering the said representation, but on the other hand, they are trying to alienate the said land in favour of third parties. Petitioner claimed that as he is in possession of the land as a lessee, unless his representation is considered, the respondents should not take any steps for alienation of the aforesaid land in favour of third parties.

¶7

4 The 4^th respondent i.e. Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal and the 3^rd respondent – temple have filed separate counters.

¶8

5 In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that the temple is endowed with the land in Sy.No.430-2 admeasuring Ac.6-71 cents, in Sy.No.430-3 admeasuring Ac.6-59 cents and out of the same, some portions were acquired under the provisions of the Land

¶9

Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was paid to the temple. It is stated that out of the remaining land of AC.9.09 cents, an extent of Ac.8-66 cents was acquired in the year 1999 for providing house sites and the same was delivered possession to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalyandurg in the year 1999 itself and an amount of Rs.69,230/- was received by the temple towards part of the compensation. It is further stated that after issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and after payment of part compensation, award was not passed. While admitting that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed, it is stated that in the suit filed by the temple for recovery of arrears, the matter was settled in Lok Adalat for a sum of Rs.11,100/- and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards arrears of rent on 13.09.2004 and further amounts are due from him. In a tabular form the arrears are shown at Rs.1,86,995/-. The counter filed by the fourth respondent – Tahsildar is also in the similar lines.

¶10

6 In this case, it is to be noticed that though the petitioner is claiming lease by way of succession from his late father, but in view of the provisions under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

¶11

Endowments Act, 1987 any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled. In view of the said provision, by operation of law, all the leases, which are not granted by religious institutions in favour of landless poor persons stand cancelled. In that view of the matter, unless there is a declaration from the competent authority notifying that the petitioner is a landless poor person, as per the explanation to Section 82 (2) of the Act, petitioner cannot claim any preferential right for selling the land in his favour on market value. In any event, as the land is belonging to the temple, petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek direction for alienation of the aforesaid land in his favour merely claiming that he continued in possession of the said land by virtue of lease granted in favour of his late father.

¶12

7 With regard to the decree obtained by the petitioner as well as the third respondent-temple, it is open for the parties to take steps to enforce them. But at the same time, in view

¶13

of the cancellation of lease by operation of law, no direction can be granted as prayed for in this Writ Petition to consider the representation dated 16.08.2007 made by the petitioner for alienation of the land in his favour, while keeping it open to the respondents to take steps for recovery of arrears, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶15

05.01.2012 Kvsn

M. Nagaraju S/o late M.Oblesappa v. The Commissioner of Endowment Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nagaraju S/o late M.Oblesappa v. The Commissioner of Endowment Department

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

Smt. Peravali Balarani,(A_10) Vs State - Represented by Spl. Pp CBI

Radhe Shyam Sharma, Vs The State of A.P.

E.Jangaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Sree Ramulu, Vs The Competent Authority under The National Highways Act

M/s. Viva Granites, Nsp Colony, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Sri Bai Devathamma Fisherman Co-operative Society Vs The District Collector