Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh ... on 23 October, 2019
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J K Maheshwari, T. Rajani
1
HCJ & TR,J
W.A No.1534 of 2017 & batch
THE CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
&
JUSTICE T. RAJANI
W.A. Nos.1534, 1572, 1577, 1578, 1690, 1732, 1740,
1796, 1814, 1830, 1881, 1891, 1892, 1908, 1909, 1919,
1934, 1935 of 2017, 186 of 2018 & 368 OF 2019.
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ) DATED: 23.10.2019 Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Endowments, appellants in all the writ appeals.
Sri P. Anil Kumar Reddy, for the 1st respondent in WA No.368 of 2019.
Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents (Revenue Department) in W.A Nos.1534, 1572, 1577, 1578, 1690, 1732, 1740, 1796, 1814, 1830, 1881, 1891, 1892, 1908, 1909, 1919 and 1934 of 2017.
Government Pleader for Endowments for the official respondents (Endowments Department) in W.A.No.1732, 1740, 1796, 1830, 1881, 1892, 1908, 1909, 1934 of 2017 and 186 of 2018.
Sri V. Raghu and Sri Ravi Cheemalapiti, learned Counsel for unofficial respondent/s in W.A.No.1572 of 2017.
Sri E.S. Pratap, learned Counsel for unofficial respondent/s in W.A No.1578 of 2017.
2
HCJ & TR,J W.A No.1534 of 2017 & batch Smt. P. Anjana Devi Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for unofficial respondents in W.A.No.1690, 1919 & 1935 of 2017.
Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for unofficial respondents in W.A.Nos.1732, 1740, 1881, 1892 and 1909 of 2017.
Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents in W.A.No.1796 and 1934 of 2017.
Sri T.D. Pani Kumar, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent/s in WA No.1814 of 2017.
Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent/s in W.A.No.1891 of 2017.
Sri R.M. Reddy, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent/s in WA No.1908 of 2017.
Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents in W.A.No.1830 of 2017.
All these writ appeals are arising out of the common order dated 24.7.2017 passed by the learned single Judge of the erstwhile combined High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in different writ petitions, wherein directions were issued to the writ petitioners to approach the Tahsildar, in the matter of grant of patta to the temple ignoring the petitioners, whose names were recorded in the revenue records earlier. On challenging the said 3 HCJ & TR,J W.A No.1534 of 2017 & batch common order, previously writ appeals being W.A.Nos.1648 of 2017 and batch were filed by some of the writ petitioners therein, and a Division Bench of the erstwhile combined High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, disposed of the said appeals vide common judgment dated 4.4.2018 with the following direction:
"While the appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the respondent-writ petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, and he was directed to consider such claims and pass appropriate orders within six months, both Smt. K. Lalitha, and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Counsel for the Simhachalam Devasthanam, would submit that, since a ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the Devasthanam in the year 1996, the subject lands belong to the Devasthanam; and the claim of the respondent-writ petitioners, to the contrary, is not tenable.
Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, would fairly state that the ryotwari patta granted to the Simhachalam Devasthanam in the year 1996 was not questioned by the respondent-writ petitioners in the present Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel would, however, contend that the reason for their failure to question the said proceedings is because they came to know of the grant of a ryotwari patta in favour of the Simhachalam Devasthanam only after they had filed the Writ Petitions; and, instead of keeping the Writ Appeals pending on the file of this Court, it would suffice if the respondent-writ petitioners are granted liberty to approach the appellate authority (Revenue Divisional Officer) questioning the orders passed by the primary authority both under Sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). While both Smt. K. Lalitha and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Counsel for the Simhachalam Devasthanam, would submit that the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be invoked after a lapse of 22 years, and any such appeal is not maintainable, it is wholly unnecessary for us 4 HCJ & TR,J W.A No.1534 of 2017 & batch to examine these rival contentions as they were not examined in the order under appeal. Suffice it, while granting liberty to the respondent-writ petitioners to question the orders passed by the primary authority under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and in granting ryotwari patta to the Simhachalam Devasthanam, to make it clear that, on his jurisdiction being invoked by the respondent-writ petitioners, the Revenue Divisional Officer would give the appellants an opportunity of being heard; and, on such an opportunity being afforded, it is open to the appellants herein to raise all such contentions, as are available to them in law, including on the maintainability of the appeals.
With these observations, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
In view of the above order passed in the earlier writ appeals, in the opinion of this Court, the above said order squarely covers the issue involved in these appeals as rightly stated across the Bar by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
Considering the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the judgment in the above batch of writ appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.1648 of 2017 would apply mutatis mutandis to these writ appeals also.
With the aforesaid observation, all the Writ Appeals stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ T. RAJANI, J
Nn
5
HCJ & TR,J
W.A No.1534 of 2017 & batch
THE CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
&
JUSTICE T. RAJANI
W.A. Nos.1534, 1572, 1577, 1578, 1690, 1732, 1740, 1796, 1814, 1830, 1881, 1891, 1892, 1908, 1909, 1919, 1934, 1935 of 2017, 186 of 2018 & 368 OF 2019.
(Per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ) Dt: 23.10.2019 Nn