This PIL sought a declaration that revenue authorities were inactioned in protecting temple land from being sold to third parties. The court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 92 of CPC provides an effective alternative remedy for disputes over charitable or religious trusts.
The public interest litigation was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA P.I.L.No.258 of 2013
Date: 10-06-2013
Between:
A. Anjaiah S/o. Nagaiah, Age 51 years, Occ: Advocate & Social worker R/o. H.NO.13-278/3, Bhagyanagar Colony, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District
… Petitioner
1. The Government of A.P. rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
P.I.L.No.258 of 2013
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)
The petitioner, who claims to be an Advocate and public spirited person, filed this public interest litigation seeking Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in protecting the public property admeasuring Ac.0.06 cents situated in Sy.No.186 of Farooqnagar Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct them to protect the said property and see that the property is used for religious purpose only for which it was granted.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.0-22 cents in Sy.No.186 of Farooqnagar village and Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District, was granted for the temple of Lord Mahadeva Swamy. One Sri Raja Madan Gopal intruded into the said land, and Sri Ramanna approached his highness Maharaja Kishan Prasad Bahadur, who directed the Tahsildar, Farooqunagar Mandal, to protect possession of the said property. Part of the said property is covered with a temple, Mattam and graveyards and the remaining extent is vacant. However, in the year 1987, three persons, namely Veera Brahmam, Mani Bhushan Chary and Umapathy, who are the sons of the said Ramanna, filed a petition before the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar to record their names in the revenue records. On such petition, the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar conducted an enquiry and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar Mandal, to record the names of the said persons in the revenue records as owners of the said property.
3. It is alleged that the said land is meant for religious purposes only, but not for the personal use of Veera Brahmam, Mani Bhushan Chary and Umapathy or their legal heirs. It is further alleged that subsequent to the said orders of the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar, some real estate agents of Shadnagar town, in collusion with respondent Nos.6 to 8 i.e., the legal heirs of Veera Brahmam, Mani Bhushan Chary and Umapathy, are trying to sell away the vacant place to third parties. Therefore, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities and requested them to see that the property is not sold to third parties, but they have not taken any action. Hence, he filed the public interest litigation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
5. During the course of hearing, when we questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the income of the temple, he was unable to give any details thereof and apart from
that, he has not explained the interest of the petitioner in the subject matter. Furthermore, as per Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. Therefore, it is clear that an effective alternative remedy is available in the subject matter under Section 92 of CPC. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this public interest litigation.
6. Accordingly, the public interest litigation is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________ N.V. RAMANA, J
Date: 10-06-2013 YCR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation regarding protection of religious property for sale should be entertained when an alternative remedy exists under Section 92 of CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Anjaiah
The Government of A.P.
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
