High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the single judge's refusal to grant interim possession relief. The court held that under Section 87 of the Telangana Act, disputes regarding endowment property fall under the Endowments Tribunal's jurisdiction, precluding immediate interference.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA; AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL N o : 73 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of theLetters Patent Appeal preferred against the Order Daled 1611212021 in W.P.No 3414912021,on the file of theHigh Court.
Between:
...APPELLANTS
AND
RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 grant interim order directing lhe respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their respective shops constructed in Sy. No.'188 & 190, Kollapur main Road andpebbair main Road at peddadagada Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District, wjthout following due process of law, pending disposal of main Writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDy
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA
The Court delivered the following:
r
TIIE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISII CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.73 of 2022
JUDGMENT: tp., t)11 t:,, )) . ,)t, 1,,r'r,u.,,., slr,,s, .-/,,rda, s,,ar,tral
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated16.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.34l49 ol 2021.
The facts of the case reveal that the appellants/writpetitioners came up before this Court by hling a writpetition under Article226 of the Constitution of India stating that they are inpossession of theland admeasuring 80 square yards in Sy.Nos.188 and 190 situated atPedda Dagada Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District andtheyare also having Occupancy Right Certificate in their favour. In spite of the aforesaid certi{icate, without initiating anyproceedings as requiredunder Section 83 or 87 of the Telangana Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987(for short, "theAct"), public notice dated 02.12.2O2I was issued, The leaned SingleJudgehas disposed of lhe rvrit petition againstwhich thepresentwrit appealhas been filed.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has argued beforethis Court that once the C)ccupancy Right certificatewas issued, no action should have been initiated under theAct.
Learned Government Advocate slated before this Courtthat the occupancy right certificate was issuedbehind theback ofSmt. Venkateshwaramma and Sri Ramalinga SwamyDevasthanam,Bekkem Village, Chinnamvavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District,resPondent Nos.4 and 5 in the writ appeal and theywere certainlynot a party in the proceedings under which the ORC was granted to the writpetitioners.
This Courthas carefullygone throughthe order passedby the learned Single Judge and the leanedSingleJudgehas arrivedat a conclusion that Section87 of the Act provides for settlement of all kinds of disputes inrespect of endowment propertySection87 of the Act
reads as under:
'87,Potrer of EldowmeatsTrlbuEalto declde certalndl6pute8cnd -.ituo(1) The EndowmcntsTribunalhaving jurisdiction shallhave ifr" po*"t,'"ft".giving noticein theprescribed mannerto the person conclrned, to enquireinto anddecideanydispute as to the question'-
(a) whether an institutionor endowmentis a charitable
institution or endowment;
(b) whether an institutionorendowmentis areligious institution or elrdowment;
(c) whether anyproperty is an endowment,if so whether it is
a charitableendowmentor a religious endowmenti
(dl whether anyproPertyis a specific endoivment;
(e) whether anypersonis entitled b' customor otherwiseto any honor, emolumentsorperquisites inany- charitable,or religious institution orendowmentand $'hat the established ' t,"{a of such institutionor endowmentls in rcgardto any other matter;
U) whether any institulionor endolr'mentis \vhollyor partlt oia secular oa,"iigio.,"character and!!hetheran.\propertlis given wholl) or partl! forsecularor rellgioLts uses;or
(g) where any property ormone) hasbeeogiven forthe "Iippo.tot an instit.riionor endowmentwhichis partlyof a """!]1a, performance "hura"taa of anyand service partl)' or of charity areligious character connected with- or .suchthe institution or endowmentor the performance of a charity which is partly ol a secular characterandpartlyof a religiouscharacter or where any property ormoney glvenls aPproprlatedpartlyto secular usei anapartty to religioususes,as to what portion of such property or -ot"yshallbe allocatedto secularor religious uses;
(h) whether a person is aiounderor a memberfrom the family of the founderof an institution or endowment'
t2\ The Endowments Tribunalmay, pending its decisionunder sub- lri"tiot(t), pass suchorder as it deemsfit for the administration of the p.op..ty oi custody of ttle moneybelonging tothe institution or endowment.
(3) The Endowments Tribunalmay while recordingits decisionunder (1) and pending implementationof such decision, pass such interim order "rb-"e"tion as it may diem litforsafeguarding the interestsof the institution or endowment andfor preventing damageto or loss or misappropriation or criminalbreachof trust in .espectof theproperties ot -o."y" belonging to or inthe possession of the institutionor endowment.
(4) The presumption in respecto[ matters coveredb'r- claLrses (a), (b), ic),(d) and 1i1in sub-section (l) is thal theinstrtution or the endowment
J
is a public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property oI money to be other tlan that of a leligious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub-sections the Deputy Commissiooer havingjurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endo&'ments Tribunal.'
In the light of the aforesaid statutory provision of law, the leaned Single Judge is certainly justilied in disposing of the writ petition with a hberty to the petitioners to u-ork out their remedies before the Endowment Tribunal, This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the leaned Single Judge. The admission is declined.
Accordrngly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
To,
Sd/-M. VIJAYA BHASKAR OEPUTY BEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t_ L) SECTION OFFICER
'1. One CC to Sri M.Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
N/RC
HIGH COURT
DATED:18/0212022
ORDER
WA.No.73 of 2022
( HE ST,1
1{"
:) 2 6 tr" 2022
.t,
,-{.
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have interfered with the single judge's order disposing of the writ petition regarding possession of endowment property.
Whether Section 87 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 mandates exclusive jurisdiction of the Endowments Tribunal for dispute settlement.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mangali Bhaskar
State of Telangana
Venkateshwaramma
Sri Ramalinga Swamy Devasthanam
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
