Dismissed

Sri Lakshminarayan Hunumanji Math, v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Telangana HC15 Oct 2014WP/14568/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to stop respondents from interfering with a temple property's possession or issuing pattas without notice. The directions were limited to banning interference without due process and notice.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession or grant pattas without due process of law, notice, and opportunity of being heard.

Sri Lakshminarayan Hunumanji Math, Vs The Commissioner… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.14568 of 2005

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶4

“to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property bearing municipal

¶5

No. 14-8-227 to 229, Shanker Bazaar, Chudi Bazaar, Hyderabad as being arbitrary illegal, without jurisdiction, without notice or opportunity, contrary to the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 not issue any pattas to the weaker section with respect to land admeasuring 350 sq. yards forming part of M.No.4-8-227 to 229, Shaker Bazaar, Chudi Bazaar, Hyderabad without following the due process of law, in the interests of justice.”

¶6

2. Heard Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka for the fifth respondent apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶7

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as under:

¶8

3.1. Petitioner is a temple registered under Section 6 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called ‘the Endowments Act’) and it possesses immovable property admeasuring 2658 sq. yards bearing Municipal No.14 -8-227 to 229 which consists of temple, rooms and an open land. Originally, the said property was under the management of

¶9

Sri Muralidas, who was the Guru of the petitioner and by way of a Will dated 06.07.1997 the said Muralidas nominated the petitioner as the successor and ever since the date of nomination as Matadhipathi the deponent of the writ affidavit has been discharging his duties and by way of proceedings dated

¶10

12.01.2004, the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad recognized the deponent as Matadhipathi of the petitioner temple.

¶11

3.2. Earlier, when there was an attempt by the fifth respondent Municipal Corporation to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the year 1993, petitioner instituted a suit bearing O.S.No.3222/1993 on the file of the Court of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking injunction to restrain the fifth respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and the said Court decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioner herein on 31.03.1998. An extent of 1578 sq. yards has been encroached upon by certain people at the behest of the respondents 3 to 5 and now an extent of 1080 sq. yards is left and is in possession of the petitioner temple and out of which 350 sq. yards of land is an open land. Respondents 3 to 5 with an intention to grant pattas illegally to the weaker sections started visiting the property of the petitioner which prompted the petitioner to submit a representation dated 20.04.2005 to the respondents 3 to 5, claiming exclusive title to the property.

¶12

4. In the above background and while alleging that the official respondents herein are visiting the property of the petitioner and have started construction of the compound wall and trying to grant pattas in favour of the weaker sections in respect of 350 sq yards of open land, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶13

5. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 06.07.2005 and passed the following interim order:

¶14

“The petitioner claims to be a Mutt, which is the owner of a property bearing Municipal No.14-8-227 to 229, Shanker Bazar, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad. 350 Sq. yards of vacant land in the said property is being interfered with, encroached and intended to built upon, by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 without any lawful title or claim

¶15

in the said property, is the complaint in the Writ petition.

¶16

Hence, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s property aforesaid, unless they have legitimate claim to the title, ownership or possession over the said property. Notice. “

¶17

6. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent stating that the subject land is a Government land and it is the duty of the authorities to safeguard the properties of the Government. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, stating that when it is the admission of the petitioner that he is the Mutawalli/Mahanth/Trustee in succession, it is his duty to safeguard the property of the institution from the clutches of the encroachers. It is further stated that as a trustee it is his duty to safeguard the endowed land of the petitioner by taking suitable steps of making fencing arrangements or fight in the Court of law and nothing prevented him to take such measures. The said counter further states that in case the respondents

¶18

3 to 5 as alleged by the petitioner are responsible for issuing pattas, the respondent No.1 will not hesitate to object the same officially and that the respondents 1 and 2 will not be silent in opposing the claim of either the Revenue Department or the Municipal Corporation when the property actually belongs to a temple that too having a pacca Munthaqab in its favour. It is further stated that the respondents 1 and 2 will surely make efforts to protect 350 sq. yards of open land which is available at present in the temple.

¶19

7. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner herein in the present writ petition is that the authorities are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property without giving any notice and opportunity. In view of the said averments in the writ affidavit, this Court does not propose to go into the other merits and demerits of the matter and also does not propose to delve into the issue of ownership which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However,

¶20

the respondent authorities cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner herein without notice and opportunity to the petitioner herein.

¶21

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the subject property bearing Municipal No.14-8-227 to 229 situated at Shanker Bazar, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad without following due process of law. It is further made clear that the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. As a As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶23

Date: .10.2014 grk

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.14568 of 2005

¶26

Date : .10.2014

¶27

grk

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.14568 of 2005

¶29

Date : -10-2014

¶30

Between:

¶31

Sri Lakshminarayan Hanumanji Math, Represented by its Mathadipathi Sri Vishnudas mahant, S/o Sri Murali Das, aged 43 years, Occ: Mahant, H.No.14-8-227 to 229, Shanker Bazar, Chudi Bazaar, Hyderabad.

¶32

… Petitioner

¶33

and The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Abids, Hyderabad and four others.

¶34

… Respondents

¶35

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶36

Order in

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.14568 of 2005

Sri Lakshminarayan Hunumanji Math, v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshminarayan Hunumanji Math, v. The Commissioner of Endowments

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

Seelam Laxmamma W/o Venkatarami Reddy Vs The Dy. Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Vasireddy Mallaiah Vs The Deputy Secretary

Thammisetti Venkateswarlu Vs The Dy. Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Lakshmi Traders, Vs Government of India, Rep by its Secretary Ministry

Ms. J. Kasturi Bayamma, Vs The India Oil Corporation Ltd.

T. Devender Reddy, Vs The Authorised Officer, Sao