Disposed

Shivarathiri Raju v. Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam

Telangana HC2 Dec 2020WP/15750/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions challenging the temple's attempt to take possession of land without following statutory procedure. The court restricted the respondents from dispossessing petitioners without adhering to the Act, while granting liberty to invoke Section 83.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to dispossess petitioners from subject lands without following due procedure under the Act, but did not preclude invoking Section 83.

Shivarathiri Raju Vs Sri Guntu Malleswara… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos. 15856 AND 15750 OF 2020

¶6

WP. No. 15856 of 2020:

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gogineni Sudhakar Rao, S/o. late G. Satyanarayana, Aged about 61 years, occ. Professional, R/o. H.No.10-5-5, Ir,4amillagudem, Khammam - 507 001.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Sri Guntu lt/lalleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban [Vandal, Khammam District rep. by its Executive Officer

¶12

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶13

3 The Commissioner of Endowments, State of Telangana, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 State of Telangana, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, represented by its Executive Officer in trying to take possession of the land admeasuring an extent o'f 2178 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.29 (part) within the Revenue and Municipal Limits of Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District without resorting to the procedure contemplated under Sec.83 of the Endowments Act as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law and in^gross violation of^principles of natural justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1't respondent i.e., Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khamrnam Drstrict, represented by its Executive Officer not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner admeasuring an extent ot 2178 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.29 (part) within the Revenue and Municipal Limits of Khammam Urban [v]andal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO: 15750 OF 2020

¶20

Between:

¶21

ShivarEthiri Raju, Sio. S.Ramulu, Aged about. 36 years, occ. Business, R/o, H. No. 1 2-1 5-1 67, M.K. Nagar, O. U.Campus, Hyderabad.

¶22

K.Sadasiva Rao, S/o. K.Koteswar Rao, Aged about. 42 years, Occ. Business, R/o. S.K.Residency, Raghavendra Colony, Alwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶23

P.Prakash, S/o. P.Narayan Rao, Aged about.39 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o. S-3, Vishal Residency, Gokul Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.

¶24

¶25

K.Raghurami Redd v, S/o. Sri Rami Reddy, Aged about 43 years, occ. Business, R/o. Satya Surya N ivas, Vikaspuri Colony, No.56, Flat No.302,^Hyderabad- 500 038

¶26

S.Jagadeshwar Rao, S/o. Bhupathi Rao, Aged about 39^{years,Occ.Business,} R/o H.No.5-3-82411 , lValakunta, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.

¶27

K.Srinivas Rao, S/o. late K.Rama Rao, Aged about. 44^years, Occ. Employee, Fl/o. Plot No.773, West Part, SKD Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad^- 500 070.

¶28

P.Krishna Rao, S/o. late P.Venkat Rao, Aged about. 69 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.5-6-96/3, Vaidehinagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram,^Hyderabad. (Petitioners 5 to 7 are the GPA Holders of Petitioners 1 to 4)

¶29

...PETITIONERS

¶30

AND

¶31

1 Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. Rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶32

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Khammam District, Khammam

¶33

The Commissioner of Endowments, State of Telangana, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶34

State of Telangana, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶35

RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of TVANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., Sri Guntu lt4alleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, represented by its Executive Officer in trying to take^possession of the land admeasuring an extent of 3388 sq.yards situated in Sy.No.29 (part) beside Bearing House No.1-9-35/59/1 within the Revenue and Municipal Limits of Khammam Urban lt4andal, Khammam District without resorting to the^procedure contemplated under Sec.B3 of the Endowments Act as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law and in gross violation of principles of naturaljustice.

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the lstrespondent i.e., Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban [v]andal, Khammam District, represented by its Executive Officer not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioners admeasuring an extent of 3388 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.29 (part) Beside bearing House No.1-9-35/59i1 within the Revenue and lvlunicipal Limits of Khammam Urban lVandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner (in both WPs'): SRI M. VIDYASAGAR

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 (in both WPs'):

¶41

SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (in both WPs'): GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶43

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶44

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶45

Writ Petition Nos.15856 and 15750 o12020

¶46

COMMON ORDER:

¶47

Since both these writ petitions arise out of common issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶48

The writ petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of the 1'r respondent i.e, Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Trunk Road, Khammam Town and Urban Mandal, Khammam District, rep. by its Executive Officer, in trying to take possession of the subject lands situated within the Revenue and Municipal Limits of Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, without resorting to the procedure as contemplated under Section B3 of Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short^'the Act'), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶49

The case of the petitioners is that they had purchased the subject lands through registered sale deeds and their names were also entered in the revenue records. lt is further stated that as subject lands are private lands, the 1't respondent temple is no way connected with the same. However, the 1't respondent without following due process of law under Section 83 of the Act is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands.

¶50

The 1 "t respondent filed counter-affidavits in both the writ petitions stating that the temple was registered under the provisions of the Act and it falls within the administrative^jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal Zone al Warangal. lt is further stated that the temple is an old institution established in Khammam Town and it has

¶51

ARR, J W.P.Nos.15856 and 15750 of 2020

¶52

been endowed with the lands in the form of service imams and that out of the said endowed lands, land to an extent of Ac.10-1 1^gts in Sy.No.29 was endowed as'service inam'in the name of one Raghunadham Pujari for rendering free services to the temple and that after^passage of time, archakas had stopped rendering services to the temple and misappropriated the endowed lands by alienating portions of those lands from time to time. lt is further stated that all alienations with respect to subject property are situated in Sy.No.29, which is endowed^property of the temple and that all such transactions with respect to subject^property are void ab inito and they are not binding upon the Endowments Department. lt is further stated that the temple was registered under the provisions of Section 43 of the Act and from time to time, the said register was updated in consonance with Section a3(10) of the Act by following the procedure under law and that the said entries were not at all challenged by either the petitioners or their alleged vendors at any point of time. lt is further stated that when once inam land is endowed with the religious institution, third party has no right over the said lands and that if there is any encroachment over the endowed properties of the temple, the Endowments Department shall follow due procedure under Section 83 of the Act. lt is also stated that if there is any dispute with regard to the entries made in the property register of the temple, an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Sections 87 and 45 of the Act. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dism issed.

¶53

Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1't respondent temple, while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavits submits that the subject temple was reglstered under Section 43

¶54

ARR, J W.P.Nos.15856 and 15750 of 2020

¶55

¶56

of the Act and the subject lands were endowed as service inam lands and as such, the petitioners have no right to squat on the said lands and their possession is illegal.

¶57

On 21 .09.2020, this Court, after considering facts and circumstances of the case, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands without following due^procedure under the Act, however,^granted liberty to them to invoke Section 83 of the Act. Since the possession of the petitioners is admitted though it is stated illegal, the respondents are empowered to evict the persons, who are in illegal occupation, under Section 83 of the Act, and that this Court has already granted liberty to them while granting interim order.

¶58

ln view of facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, both the Wnt Petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents not to dispossess the^petitioners from the subject lands without following due^procedure under the Act. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from invoking Section 83 of the Act. No order as to costs.

¶59

B. Miscellaneous^petitions, if any^pending in these writ^{petitions,shall}

¶60

stand closed.

¶61

SD/.K.VEN ASSIST ANT^RE RAR

¶62

/iTRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

The Executive^{Officer, Sri Guntu l\ilalleswara SwamyVari Devastanam'} Trunk Road,^{Khammamt;;;,'Kil';n1;mUrban [r/'andal' Khammam District}

¶65

The Assistant^{Commissioner of Endowments' Khammam District'Khammam}

¶66

The Commissioner^{of Endowments,State of Telangana' Boggulakunta'} Tilak Road, Abids'^HYderabad'

¶67

4 The Principal Secretary,^{State of Telangana' Revenue (Endowments)} Department.^{Secretariat. Hyderabad'}

¶68

One CC^{to Sri. lr,4 Vidyasagar, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶69

One CC^{to Sri. Jagan lt4ohan ReddyKotha' Standing Counselfor} Endowments tOPUCI

¶70

Two C.D.^CoPies Prk A:

HIGH COURT

DATED:O2l1212O2O

COMMON ORDER

WP. Nos.15856 and 15750 ol 2020

¶75

e
io 2 2 DEC 20?t I
Fsr.."ra

¶76

Disposing of the Writ Petitions without costs.

¶77

7-<br>

Shivarathiri Raju v. Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivarathiri Raju v. Sri Guntu Malleswara Swamy Vari Devastanam

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

Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur, Secunderabad Vs Prl. Secretary, Forests Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Kotha Shravan Kumar and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy Vs Neelima Vanguru

Neelima Vanguru Vs Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy

M/s Link Transport Co. Vs M/s Arch Pharma Labs Ltd.