Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa Hari Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.29459 of 2022
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 in trying to construct the Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in the land belongs to 4th respondent's temple in an extent of Ac.0.05½ cents in Survey No.69 of Lingamgunta village, which was notified under Section 22 (A) (1)( c) of the Registration Act, by the Endowments Department under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987, being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.5 to 8 not to construct the Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in the land belongs to 4th respondent's temple in an extent of Ac.0.05 ½ cents in Survey No.69 of Lingamgunta village, and pass such other order of orders...."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of Lingamgunta village and they used to eak out their livelihood by attending agricultural operations in their respective lands. All the petitioners are having agricultural lands and cultivating the same by drawing water from the Nagarjuna Sagar right canal. It is the case of the petitioners that many temples are situated in their village viz., Chennakesava Swamy temple, Anjaneya Swamy temple and Kasi Visweswara Swamy temple were 2 registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is further stated that the petitioners are all devotees of the group of temples. While so, Lord Subrahmanyeswara Swamy temple and Sai Baba temple were constructed in the vacant site in between Chennakesava Swamy temple and Kasi Visweswara Swamy temple about 60 and 25 years back respectively.
(ii) It is further stated that all the temples stated above are situated in survey No.69 of their village in an extent of Ac.0.68 cents, the same was notified by the Endowments Department through its Notification issued by 2nd respondent, dated 06.05.2014 and 04.06.2016 respectively. The above said extent of land was kept in the list of Prohibited Properties.
(iii) It is further stated that the entire village of Lingamgunta is situated in survey No.69 and the temples are situated middle of the village. No vacant land is available abutting to the group of temples on all sides except southern side of the group of temples. The vacant site abutting to southern side of the group of temples is approximately Ac.0.37 cents, out of Ac.0.68 cents in survey No.69 and the same is being used for conducting festivals relating to all the temples, performing rituals and other related programmes. Apart from that, the subject land was notified as Endowment property under Section 43 of the Act.
3
(iv) While the things stood thus, respondent Nos.6 to 8 proposed to construct Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in some part of the said land in survey No.69. Even though the petitioners along with others represented the authorities not to convert the Endowment land for the purpose of other public utility without there being any authority, but the respondent authorities are proceedings with the construction. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4, learned Government Pleader for revenue appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land in survey No.69 of Lingamgunta village was classified as 'Endowment Land' under Section 43 of the Act and the same is vested with respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. Without there being any permission from respondent Nos.1 to 3 and more so, without prior permission from this Court, in view of the judgment rendered by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 07.06.2005 in Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005 in respect of utilization of Endowment land cannot be allowed and any alienation to that effect is void ab initio. However, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are trying to construct Village Secretariat 4 and Rythu Barosa Kendram. He further submits that as per RSR/Re- settlement Register, the land in survey No.69 was classified as 'Grama Kantam land'. Later, some part of the land in survey No.69 was notified as 'Endowment land' after following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. He further submits that since it is the Endowment land, it cannot be converted for any other purpose without there being prior permission from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also from this Court. Hence, he prays the Court to direct the respondent Nos.6 to 8 not to construct the Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram in the subject land.
5. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 would submit that the Gram Panchayat, Lingamgunta resolved to construct Village Secretariat at vacant site in Survey No.69 and Rythu Barosa Kendram in Survey No.71 which is classified as 'Donka' vide Resolution No.4 dated 03.08.2022. In view of the resolution of Gram Panchayat, the construction of Village Secretariat as well as Rythu Barosa Kendram cannot be stopped, as they both are meant for public purpose and more over, the land in which the proposed construction is carrying was classified as 'Grama Kantam land', which is vested with respondent No.8-Gram Panchayat and not belongs to Endowment Department as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted written instructions dated 16.09.2022, wherein it is 5 stated that the land in survey No.69 identified for construction for Village Secretariat which is classified as 'Village site' and it is observed that some extent of village site in survey No.69 was entered in the List of Prohibited Properties i.e., an extent of 7820 sq ft in favour of Sri Chennakesawa Swamy temple, 5478 sq ft in favour of Sri Kasi visweswara Swamy temple and 12255 sq ft in favour of Sri Bala Subrahmanyeswara Swamy temple and 3780 sq ft in favour of Archaka quarters. The land identified for proposed construction of Village Secretariat is an extent of Ac.0.06 cents i.e., approximately 2600 sq ft of land, but out of the said land, 1306 sq ft (Ac.0.03 cents) only is covered in Endowment Property and the remaining Ac.0.03 cents is not covered in the Endowment Property. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 will not interfere with the possession of 1306 sq ft temple land which entered in List of Prohibited Properties and they will move and construct the Village Secretariat in the remaining vacant site or any other suitable site which is available in the village site in Survey No.69.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments as well as learned standing counsel for Endowments did not prefer to file counters, but submitted that the land in survey No.69 was notified as 'Endowment land' under the provisions of the Endowment Act 1987. It is further submitted that once the land was notified as Endowment land, without prior permission of this Court, the Endowment Land cannot be utilized for any other purpose by any other department including the 1 st respondent-State. 6 Therefore, the proposed construction cannot be permitted at the vacant site of Endowment Land without prior permission from this Court.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments that some part of the land in survey No.69 belongs to Endowment Department is an admitted fact in view of the Notification under Section 43 of the Act. The other contention of both the counsel that once the land is notified as Endowment Land, without prior permission of this Court, it cannot be converted for any other purpose in view of the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the vacant site of the Endowment Department, where the religious rituals and customs have been performing by the villagers since decades, cannot be deprived of by allowing these constructions is also sustainable. The contentions of learned Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat that due to non-availability of suitable Government land in the village and in view of the administrative sanction for construction of Village Secretariat and Rytu Barosa Kendram by respondent No.5 and also in view of the resolution of Gram Panchayat for such constructions at subject place should be allowed are not tenable. The other contention of learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the proposed constructions are meant for public purpose and part of Endowment Land is being 7 occupied for subject construction, which is a small extent, there is no necessity of any prior permission either from the Endowments Department or from this Court, is also not tenable. The contention of respondent Nos.7 and 8 that the Gram Panchayat specifically resolved for subject constructions, since the subject land is more suitable, which meant for entire village and the said construction cannot be stopped on the guise of Endowment Land, is in violation of the Law.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, admittedly, the respondent Nos.5 to 8 did not obtain any prior permission from this Court for making such constructions as required in view of the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005. Since part of the subject land for construction of Village Secretariat is notified as 'Endowment land', it cannot be make use for any other purpose. Hence, the proposed construction of Village Secretariat in survey No.69 of the village cannot be allowed, but whereas the subject Rythu Barosa Kendram is at survey No.71, which is classified as 'Donka' and vested with the 8th respondent-Gram Panchayat, the construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram is not at the wish of the respondent authorities for the reason that the classification of land as 'Donka, it comes under the category of Community Land, for which the change of nature of land is required from the 1st respondent-State as per Law. Without doing the same, the construction itself is illegal and unauthorised only. 8
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent Nos.5 to 8 not to construct the Village Secretariat in Survey No.69 of Lingamgunta village. So far as the construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram is concerned, the land identified for that purpose is at survey No.71 of Lingamgunta village, which is classified as 'Donka', the procedure stated above shall adhere to by the respondent authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
Date: .10.2022
MP
9
19
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.29459 of 2022
Dated: 19.10.2022
MP