Dismissed

Brij Gopal Heda v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2025WP/21191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A lessee's son challenged the temple Executive Officer's interference with his tenement and threat of dispossession, contending Section 83 of the Endowments Act procedure was mandatory. The court noted his lease-extension request had been rejected by the Commissioner in 2021 and that he held no subsisting lease, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Brij Gopal Heda Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21191 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Brij Gopal Heda, S/o. Sri Sita Ram Heda, Aged about 53 years, Occ; Business, Rlo.19-1-927 129lA, Murli Nagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad 500064,

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'l . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Endowment Department, Represented by the Commissioner of Endowment, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner Endowment Department, Hyderabad District.

¶14

T[e Assistant Commissioner Endowment Department, Hyderabad District.

¶15

The Executive Officer, Endowment Department, Sri MuraliManohar Swamy Temple KishanBagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶16

Nand Kumar, S/o Late Sri Raja Nand Lal, Aged about 83 years, Occ Founder frusteel^Member sf^{the FounderFamily of Sri Mural Manohar Swamy} Templg, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶17

(R6 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 10-0'1-2025 in 1.4.No.112022)

¶18

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 an order, direction or writ, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, thereby declaring that the Act of the Respondent No.5 in interfering with the possession of tenement^portion bearing municipal no. 19-4-367, admeasuring 3433 sq.^yards equivalent to 2929.98 sq. meters situated at Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad,^pending Representation before the

¶20

Respondent No.2 and without due process of law is not only illegal, unlaMul, arbilrary and against the law and principles of natural justice and further to declare the caution notice written on the gate of the petitioner by the Respondent No.5 as illegal, unlawful arbitrary and againsl the law and principles of natural justice thus, thereby directing the Respondents not to dispo5sess the petitioner from the sublect land without following procedure laid down under Sec.83 to gO of the Act

¶21

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to pass an orde[ of lnterim lnjunction, thereby restraining the ftespondents or any other person claiming through or under them frgm interfering with the peaceful posses5ion and enloymgnt of the petitioner in respect of proper.ty bearing municipal no.^'19-4-367, sdmeasuring 3433 sq. yards equivalent to 2929.9A sq. meters situated at Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, pending disposal of lhe writ petition.

¶23

|A.NO:2 OF 2O22

¶24

Between:

¶25

Nand Kumar, S/o Late Sri Rala Nand Lal, Aged about 83 years, Occ Founder Trustee/ Member of the Founder Family of Sri Mural Manohar Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶26

.....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.6

¶27

AND

¶28

'1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶29

2, Endowment Department, Represented by the Commissioner of Endowment, Boggulakunta. Hyderabad.

¶30

The Deputy Commissioner Endowment Department, Hyderabad District.

¶31

The Assistanr commissioner Endowment Department, Hyderabad District.

¶32

The Executive officer, Endowment Department, sri MurariManohar swamy Temple KishanBagh Bahadurpura. Hfderabad.

lri

{

.....RESPONDENTS

6 Brii Gopal^{Heda, S/o. Sri Sita Ram H*aAoed about 53 years' Occ;} Brrsiness. Rto 1g-1-g;idg)n.^{ff,irrfi i.,lagar, Banaairpura.Hyderabad 500064}

¶37

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶38

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Courtmay be plqasedto} vacate the^interim Qrders^{dlOT-Og-2021 , in W'PNo 21 191t2021 ' and dismiss the} main writ Petition^{with costs'}

¶39

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA}

¶40

Counset^for the^{Respon(ent Nos'1tq 4 : GP FORENDQWMENTS}

¶41

Counsel^for the^{Respondent No'S: FRI K'JAGANMOHAN REDDY}

¶42

Counsel^for the^{lmpleadRespondent No'0 : SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY}

¶43

The Court made^{the followingORDER}

CaN

wp-21191_2021 N8K, J

THE HON' BtE SRI IUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶50

WRIT PETITION No.2 191of^02L

¶51

ORDER:

¶52

The petitioner challenges^{the interferenceof respondentNo'5-} Executive^{Officer of the Temple, with the tenement (MunicipalNo' 19-} 4-367,3433^sq. vardsJ^{at Kishanbagh,Bahadurpura, Hyderabad,as} illegal, arbitrary^{itnd violative of Section 83 of the A'P' Charitable &} Hindu Religious^{tnstitutionsand Endowments Act, 1987'}

¶53

Heard Mr. Damodar^{Mundra, learned counselfor the petitioneL} and the learned^{Government Pleader for Endowments'Perused the} record.

¶54

Brief facts of the case^{at hand, so far as relevantfor the purpose} of this writ^{petitiorr can be statedas follows:} 4. The sublect property^{i.e., Municipal No. 19-4-367} [3433 sq.yards/2929.9A sq.^{metersJ atKishanbagh, Bahadurpura,} Hyderabad, was^{originallyleasedto the petitioner'sfatheL Sri Sita Ram} Heda, by Respondent^{No.4-Assistant Commissioner;Endowments} Department, on^{24'.11.L980at Rs. 500/month, and thereafter the rent} was enhanced from time^{to time, which was being paid regularly} without default. In 2015,^{constructionof storeroom, staff room, and} gate was permittecl, with rent^{raised to Rs. 25,000/month. Initially, the} petitioner's father ran M/s. Pawan Parking^{Place. Post-2015,he ran} M/s. Heda Associates, dealing in Iron,^{Steel, MTS Bars,and Cement'} The petitioner prolrosed extending the^{premises from 80 x 60 to 100 x} B0 feet, offering an additional Rs.10,000/month, but received^no

¶55

¶56

wp _27191_2021 NB(, J

¶57

response. Instead, a Caution^{Noticewas placedon the Gateon} 05.L1.2020, claiming^{the ownershipof temple and prohibitingvehicle} entry. The^{petitioner's father died on 10-12.2020,and the peritioner} continues the business in^{the subject premises. RespondentNo'S} issued a Final Notice on^{19.02-2021 (served on 20'O2'202L)'} demanding vacation of^{premises within 7 days. The petitioner asserts} that Section 83 of the^{A.P. charitable & Hindu ReligiousInstitutions} and Endowment Act, 1987,^{grantsjurisdictionto the Assistant} Commissioner to act against^{encroachers, eithersuo motu or upon} complaint from the Trustee.

¶58

Petitioner relies on the^{judgment of the TelanganaHigh 'Court in} K. Ranga Rao v. State of^{Andhra Pradeshl, which followedthe} Division Bench's Orderⁱⁿ Writ^{PetitionsNo. 34361, 39013,and 39151} of 20L6. The court^{held that encroachmentcasesmust be reported to} the Endowments^{Tribunal,which must issue Notice and hear the} alleged encroacher before^{passing orders for removalof alleged} encroachment in^{accordancewith section 83 0f the EndowmentsAct,} 1987. Due to threats of^{dispossessionby Respondent No' 5, the} petitioner filed WP No.^{457212021, which was disposedof on} 04.03.2021. The court^{permitted the petitionerto submita} representation to the^{2nd respondent-Endowment commissioner;with} supporting documents.^{The Commissionerwas directed to verify} records, hear both^{parties, and pass a comprehensiveorder within} four weeks. The^{petitioner submitteda representation to Respondent} No. 2 on 16.03.2021'.^{A noticewas issued on09.OB'2027, schedulinga} meeting on 21..08.2021.^{The petitioner attendedthe meeting,and the}

t 2020 (s)ALr 187

w^p -21191_2027 NBK, ,,

¶63

matter was reserved for orders. Respondent No. 5 collected rent up to luly^{2021 on 20.08.2021. On 27.08.2027,} at around 9:15 PM, Respondent No.5, along with 10-12 persons and a JCB vehicle (No. AP20Q 4082), r'emoved some vehicles from the petitioner's parking area without notice. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Statibn House Office4 Bahadurpura.

¶64

Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner; while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that the actions of respondent No. 5 violate the statutory provision under Section 83 of the Act which mandates that encroachment cases must be reported to the Endowments Tribunal, which is required to issue notice and hear the alleged encroacher before passing any orders for removal. Learned counsel refers to Section 83 of the Act, which reads as follows:

¶65

"Section 83. Encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers:

¶66

(1) Where the Assistant Commissioner having iurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a complaint made by the trustee has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as encroacher) any land, building, tank, well, spring or water-course or any space belonging to the institution or endowment, wherever situated or deemed as an encroacher under any of the provisions of this Act, the Assistant Commissioner shall report the fact together with relevant particulars to the [Endowments Tribunal] having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated.

¶67

¶68

wp_21191 2021 NBK, .,

¶69

Explanation.-For the purpose of this^{Chapter the} expression^'encroacher' shall mean^{any person who} unauthorisedly occupy any land^{or buildingor space} and deemed to include any^{personwho is in occupation} of the land or building or space without^{the approvalof} the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to^remainin the land or building or space after the^{expiry or} termination or cancellation of the lease,^mortgageor licence in respect thereof^granted to^{him or it.}

¶70

(2) Where, on a perusal of the report received^{by him under} sub-section(1), the [Endowments^{Tribunal] finds that there is a} prima facie case of encroachment, [ft] shall cause^{to be served} upon the encroacher a notice specifying^{the particularsof the} encroachment and calling on him to^{showcausebefore a} certain date why an order requiring him to^removethe encroachment before the date specified^{in the noticeshould not} be made. A copy ofthe notice^{shall also be sent to the trusteeof} the institution or endowment^concerned.

¶71

(3) The notice referred to in sub-section^{(2) shallbe served in} such manner as may^be Prescribed.

¶72

(4) Where after considering the obiections, if^{any, of the} encroacher received during the^{period specifiedin the notice} referred to in sub-section (2) and after conducting^suchenquiry as may be prescribed, the^{EndowmentsTribunalis satisfied} that there has been an encroachment, [it]^{may, by orde4 require} the encroacher to remove the encroachment^{and deliver} possession of the land or building or space^{encroachedupon to} the trustee tlefore the date speciFred^{in suchorder}

wp_21191_2021 N8K, J

(5) The order of the Endowments^{Tribunalundersub-section} (4) shatl be in writing and shall contain the^{grounds on which} he has passed the order.

¶77

(6) During the pendency of the^{proceedings, the (Endowments} Tribunat) shall order the encroacher^{to depositsuchamountas} may be specified by [it] in^{consideration of the use and} occupation of the^{propertiesin question in the manner} prescribed.

¶78

Thus, it is clear that the^{RespondentNo.S, does not have any} authority to interfere with^{the possessionof the Petitioner} herein, more^particularly without^{followingthe procedure} prescribed try the law.

¶79

Learned counsel relies^{on the} iudgment^{of the TelanganaHigh} Court in K. Ranga Rao^{(supra) and submits that encroachmentcases} must be adjudicated^{by the Endowments Tribunal, and no evictioncan} take place without^{propernotice and hearing and as impugned action} of respondent No.5^{is contraryto this bindingprecedent,the same is} illegal and arbitrary. Learned^{counsel submits that the petitioner filed} W.P.No.4572/2027, and^{this Court whiledisposing of the writ petition} on04.03.2021,^{permitted the petitioner to submita representationto} the 2"d respondetrt,^{directed the Commissioner to veriff records, hear} both parties, ancl^pass a^{comprehensive order within fourweeks.} Learned counsel submits that in^{pursuance of the order dated} 04.03.2021, the^{petitionersubmitteda representation on 16.03.2021,} and a meeting was scheduled^{for 27.08.2021,howeve4 before any} orders could be passed respondent No. 5 along with 10-12^persons

¶80

¶81

wp.21191-2O2\ NBK, J

¶82

and a fCB vehicle, forcibly removed^{vehiclesfrom the petitioner's} parking area on27.08.2021.. without any notice or authority.

¶83

Learned counsel for the^petitioner further submits^that respondent No.5 is not competent authority^{underSection 83 of the} Endowments Act, l9B7 , and has no^{jurisdictionto issue eviction} notices or take coercive action against^{the petitioner. The petitioner} has cooperated with the authorities and^{paid rent up to} lrtly^202L'as evidenced by the receipt issued on^{20.08.2027.Learnedcounsel} would also submit that the^{petitioner'sbusiness,whichhasbeen} operating for decades, is under threat^due to^{the illegal and forcible} removal of vehicles by respondent No.5^and the^{threat of} dispossession caused significant^{financialand reputational harmto the} petitione4 and the petitioner lodged a complaint with^the Bahadurpura Station House Officer.

¶84

Learned Government Pleadec basing on^{the counter affidavit,} contends that the petitioner's case^{involvesa dispute over possession} of land belonging to a public^{religious institution, the respondent-} Temple, registered under the EndowmenG^{Act. The temple, classified} as a Category-6(b) institution, is^{managedby an Executive Officer} appointed by the Endowments Department.^{The temple owns} agricultural and vacant^{lands,including premisesbearing Municipal} No. 19-4-367, admeasuring 3433^{Sq. Yds., in Attapurvillage and other} areas. The petitioner's^{fathec Sri Sitaram Heda, leased the premises in} 1980 for 5 years at a monthly rent of^{Rs. 500/-.The rent was later} enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- and then to Rs. 15,000/-by^{2O15.ln 2010, the} temple's administration was taken over by the^{Department from Sri}

wp_2719L_2027 NBK, J

Rajkumar Bharatlal, a member of the founder family. The petitioner's father was issued a notice on 2B-1L-2019 to furnish lease approval documents or vacate within 7 days under Section 83 ofAct 30 of 1987. He replied on L0-12-2019, claiming regular rent payments and requesting no inconvenience. Howeve4, no resolution was reached. A subsequent notice on 05-ll-2020 demanded vacation due to unauthorized possession, and 3000 Sq. Yds. were taken ove6 leaving the petitioner with 433 Sq. Yds. The petitioner owes Rs. 1,07,500/- in rental dues. A final notice on 79-02-2021 gave the petitioner 7 days to vacate, failing which legal action under the Endowments Act would be initiated. The petitioner's claim that the Executive Officer lacks authority to interfere is contested as baseless. The petitionei had previously filed W.P.No.4572 of 2021, disposed of on O4-03-202L, allowing him to approach the Commissioner with a representation. Learned Government Pleader submits that this writ petition is barred by res judicata due to the earlier order dated 04.03.2027 in W.P.No.4572 of 202L.

¶89

B. Having considered the respective submissions, it may be noted that the petitioner previously approached this Court in WP No.4572 of 2021, wlth the very same grievance of eviction from the subject property on the ground that the petitioner's father has been initially granted lease and its forty years now that the lease has been on month-to-month basis, and the authorities are bound to follow Section 83 ofthe Endowments Act, even in the case of encroachers. This Court by order dated 04.03.2021 disposed of the writ petition observing as follows:

._,

w p_27191_2021 NA(, J

¶95

"4. tn view of the above submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed^of permitting the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent -^The Commissionei Endowment Department and^submit representation enclosing the relevant documents in support^of his contentions and on such representation, the^Znd respondent - The Commissioner, Endowment Department shall verify the records available with the Endowment Department and affter giving an opportunity to the respondent^No.S -^Sri Murali Manohar Swamy temple, and after^{verifying their} records, to pass comprehensive order. This^{Exercise shall be} completed as expeditiously as^{possibly preferablywithin a} period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the^{petitionershall} cooperate with the enquiry before the Znd respondent -^The Commissioner, Endowment Department."

¶96

It is pertinent to note that^pursuant to^{the order dated} 04.03.2021,, the petitioner approached the 2"d^respondent Commissione4 whereafter the^{2nd respondent passed order dated} 04.10.2021 reiecting the request for^{extensionof lease. The relevant} portion of order of 2nd respondent reads as follows:

¶97

"ln the reference 6s cited notice has issued to the petitioner i.e., Sri Brii Gopal Heda and the Executive office4 Sri Murali Manohar^Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad are hereby informed to^attend before the Commissioner, Endowments Department,^{Hyderabad on} 21st August ZO2l at 4:00 pm, along with relevant documents^and connected records without fail.

¶98

_ -{ccordingly^{the petitioneri.e., Sri Brii Gopal Hedaand the} Executive officer, Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Temple,^Kishanbagh,

wp-27197-2027 NBK, J

Hyderabad atong^{with the AssistantCommissioner, Endowments} Deparhnent, Hyderabad^{have attendbeforetheCommissioner,} Endowments Department,^{Hyderabad on 21't August2021.}

¶103

The petitioner have submitted^{a depositionvide reference7s} cited stating that he is ready to^{pay an amountof Rs.75,000/-P.M.} towards rent to an extent of^{3433 sq.ydsto run the building material,} pre-owed cars etc (or) he is ready to^{pay an amount of Rs'20,000/-} P.M. to the present shop^{i.e., 800 sq.yds and requested to kindly} extend the lease for [5) Years.

¶104

The Executive officer^{of the subiecttemple submitted report in} the reference 8th cited, stating^{that,earlierthe Founder familyof the} subiect temple issued^{lease deeddt'24.11.1980,duringthe tenureof} Sri Raj Kumar Bhamtlal^{(Founder Family Member),the premises} bearing municipal no.l9-4'367^{admeasuring 3433 Sq'Yds',was} leased out to Sri Sitaram^{Heda, the fatherof the petitioner on a} monthly rent of^RS.SO0/- for^{a period of 5 years upto 1985'} Subsequently, in the^{year2010 the rent was enhanced to [ts'6,000/-} after the reins of the^{administrationwas taken over l,y the} Department from Sri Rai^{Kumar Bharatlal,Memberof the Founder} and an Executive^{Officer was appointedto manage the day to day} affairs of the temple.^{The rentwas enhancedby the thenExecutive} Officer from Rs,6,000/- to^{Rs.15,000 upto 2015and the rent was} again enhanced toom Rs.15,000/-^{to Rs.25,000/- andat present the} occupant is^{paying Rs.25,000/-P.M. till 30.06.2021.The lease holder} Sri Sitaram^{Heda was expired on 1O.12.2O2OandSri Brii GopalHeda,} S/o Late Sri Sri^{SitaramHeda is enioying the propertyand payingthe} rent of Rs.25,000/-^{P.M. to the subiect temple upto30.06.2021 and} also stated that the^{requestmade by the petitioneri.e., Sri Brii Gopal} Heda for extension of^{lease for a furtherperiod of (5) years may not} be considered since there^{are no leaseapproral ordersin favourof} the present occupant^{i.e., Sri Brii GopalHeda,which is against the} rules.

wp_21191_2021 N8K, J

In view ofthe above, in compliance ofthe orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.p.No.4S72 of 2O2O the matter has been examined with reference to Act and Rules and the request ofsri brii Gopal Heda for extension of lease premises bearing municipal no.194-367 belonging to Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Templ,e Kishanbagh, Hyderabad for a further period of (05) years is hereby reiected, as the earlier lease was approved in favour ofsri Sithamm Heda who is the father oIpresent petitioner and died on 1rO.lZ,2O20!,

¶109

10' Admittedry, the petitioner as welr as the Executive officer of respondent-Temple attended the enquiry before the 2nd responden! and the petitioner made a request for extension oF lease for a further period of five years offering to pay enhanced rent, howevel .the request of the petitioner for extension of rease was rejected as the lease in question was in favour of petitioner,s father; which goes to show that there was no |ease in the name of the petitioner except that the petitioner has been continuing in the subject premises on the earlier lease granted in favour of his fathec which lease has admittedry expired. Therefore, in the absence of any lease either expired, or subsisting, specifically in favour of the petitioner herein, the action of 2"d respondent in neither rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of lease, nor taking steps for eyiction of petitioner from the subject premises, can be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

¶110

The 2nd respondent-Commissioner passed the Order rejecting the petitioner's request in the year z02r.we are now in 2025. The petitione4 being a party to the proceedings before the 2nd respondent and having,f,ngwledge of rejection of his request by the competent authority, cannot squat over the Endowment Land or claim equities

¶111

¶112

wp_21191_2021 NBK, .,

¶113

¶114

under the Endowments Act. Therefore, the^{petitionercannothave} grievance on the alleged eviction steps being taken by respondent authorities in respect of the subject^property. In that^view of^the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ^petition.

¶115