Dismissed

Mr.Abdul Baseer v. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and 4 Others

Telangana HC15 Jun 2021CMA/652/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Tribunal order restraining the appellant from digging pits or making constructions on a temple schedule property. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that institutional property disputes require status quo to protect the institution, though it directed the Tribunal to decide the title dispute within six months.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal directed to dispose of the clubbed original appeals within six months; both parties to cooperate.

Mr.Abdul Baseer Vs The Assistant Commissioner of… — Intellectual Property | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICECHALLA KODANDA RAM}

¶5

CIVIL MIS ELLANEO APPEAL NO:^{652 0F 2019}

¶6

AppealfiledUnderorderXLlll,Rule.l(r)ofCodeofCivilProcedureandSection 104 read with^{Section 88 of T.S.CH H R & EndowmentsAct' 1987 againstthe Order} dated26.06.2019madelnl.A.No'342of2019ino.A.No,601of2012onthefileofthe Telangana Endowments^{Tribunal at Hyderabad'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Abdul Baseer,^{S/o.Mohd. Sayeed Uddin, Aged about 30 years'Occ'Business'} iiTo.H.r.rJii-z:800/95,^{Rethi B6weli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad'}

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^NO.4

¶10

AND

¶11

l.TheAssistantCommissionerofEndowments,RangaReddyDistrictatDharmika Bhavan, Boggulkunta,^HYderabad.

¶12

2.SriLaxminarasimhaSwamyTemple,MoosapetVillage'BalanagarMandal' Ranga Reddy District.^{Rep. by its Manager.}

¶13

...RESPONDENTSiPETITIONER

¶14

Tumu Sai Prakash,^{S/o.Tumu Padmarao Patel(Diedper LRs)}

¶15

Tumu Rohit Sai, S/o.Late^{Tumu Sai Prakash, Aged about 27 years, Occ'} gtsiness, R/o.H.No.12-1-58,Sai Ir,4ansion, Moosapet' Kukatpally, Hyderabad.^{500018.(tt/edchalDistrict).}

¶16

Tumu Sura1, S/o.Late Tumu^{Sai Prakash, Aged about 26 years, Occ Business,} R/o.H.No.12-1-58, Sai L4ansion,^{Moosapet, Kukatpally'} Hyderabad.50001 8.(Medchal District).

¶17

(Respondents No.4 and 5 are not necessary parties, Formal^parties only)

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶20

Application under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the accompanying affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the Operation of the impugned Orders in 1.A.No.342 of 2019 in O.A.No.601 ot 2012, dt.26-06-2019, on the file of Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. V HARI HARAN

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Govt. Pleader for Arbitration

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.2: SRl. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA

¶24

The Court made the following JUDGMENT

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶26

C.M.A. No. 652 of 2019

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

This Appeal is filed against the order daterl 26.06.2019 passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, llyderabad in 1.A.No.342 o'f 2Q19 in O.A.No.601 of 2012 directing the appeilant herein not to change the nature of the O.A. schedule property by way of digging pits or by making constructions in it.

¶29

The appellant asserts that by claiming right in the schedule property, he filed O.A.No.4 o'f 2019 before the Telangana State Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, to declare him as a rightful owner in respect thereto. He also asserts that in the said O.A., he filed LA No.10 ol 2019 for grant of injunction and the Tribunal by order dated 30.04 2019, granted injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 fronr interfering with his^{peaceful possession and enjoyment of} the petition schedule land till the disposal^{of the O A.}

¶30

On behalf of respondent No.2, a^{counter-affidavithas been} filed specifically contending^{that the property belongsto respondent} No.2 Temple as^{per the pahaniesfor the years1951-52 and 54-55} and necessary steps^{have been takenfor the purposeof protecting} the^property.

¶31

Sri V.Hari Haran,^{learnedSenior Counsel appearingfor the} appellantsubmitsthatinviewofinjunclionorderdated300420'19 passed in l.A.No.10 of 20'1 9 in^{O.A.No.4of 2019, as the title of the} appellant's^{predecessorswas confirmedin the revenue proceedings}

¶32

CKR,J C.M.A.No.652 of 2019

¶33

and as there is no balance of convenience in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the order under Appeal is unsustainable. He also submits that the appellant is ready to file an undertaking that he would not claim equities, if he is allowed to develop the property, as, in the end, if he succeeds, due to time lag, the cost overruns and he would be put to loss enormously.

¶34

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government pleader for Endowments submits that the issue with respect to the tire over the property is required to be decided by the Tribunal and that vide orc,er dated 24.01.2019 in t.A.No.10 0f 2019 in o.A.No.4 0f 2019, the Tribunal ordered stalus quo with respect to the schedule property, by which, the appellant was prevented from making any construction and changing the nature of the property. He also prays for issuing a direction to the Tribunar to dispose of both the o.As. at the earriest in the interest of both the parties.

¶35

It may be noted thal vide order, dated 30.04.2019, in l.A.No.10 of 2019 in O.A.No.4 o,f 2019 filed by the appeilant seeking non-interference with respect to the schedure property, the Tribunar granted injunction. lt may be noted further that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed O.A.No.601 of 2012 seeking to declare the appellant as an encroacher and to evict him by invoking Section 83(1) of the Telangana charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Act, 19g7 and the Tribunal by the order under Appeal restrained the appellant from changing the nature of the O.A. schedule property. lt is evident from the order under Appeal that the

¶36

CKR.J C.lvl.A,No.652 of 2019

¶37

Tribunal did not advert to the right with respect to the property. lf the constructions are made, unlike a private individual, who takes interest, in the case of institutions, on account of various procedural aspects, restoration of order of sfatus quo may not happen. ln the circumstances, the order under Appeal cannot be found fault with.

¶38

Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. However, as O.A.Nos.4 of 2019 and 601 of 2012 have already been clubbed together, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. lt is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate in early disposal of the matter.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shali stand dismissed

¶40

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

STV. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ( i't

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

l . The Telangana^{Endowments Tribunalat Hyderabad (with records' if any)} i. d; cCio-sri^{v. nari Haran, Advocate IOPUC]} 5. 5;; dd i; 5;i iigu;^{I'/o-h;n'neodvt<otha,Aovocate[oPtrc]} ;. il; dd.i" d;:^{ir"ro"r"ioi nroit'ration, Hish court fbr the stateof Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶45