Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jakka Appa Rao Another vs The State Of A.P. 3 Others on 21 February, 2025
1
APHC010233252014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 41052/2014
Between:
Jakka Appa Rao & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of A P 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
2. .
3. JAGADISH KUAMAR BATCHU
4. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the rd action of the 3 respondent in issuing Proceedings in th Rc.No.C8/4667/2014-3, dt.12.12.2014 calling upon the 4 respondent to cancel the Transferable Development Rights 2 Certificate, dated 12.08.2014 issued to the petitioners (under Rule 17 of the A.P. Building Rules, 2012) as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, contrary to Rule 17 of the A.P. Building Rules, 2012 as also in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A th of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4 respondent to refrain from interfering from the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 221 Sq.yds, situated in Sy.No.48/1B of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District......."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of an extent of 221 square yards of land situated in Survey No.48/1B of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam district (for short "subject land"), having purchased a larger extent of 264 square yards, under a registered sale deed dated 24.02.1989 from Kallapilli Simhachalam. The Vepagunta Village was notified under the provisions of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Inams Abolition Act"). Survey and Settlement operations have not been conducted after coming into force the Inams Abolition Act and no notices have been issued either to the petitioner or predecessors-in-title under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, particularly under Section 3 or thereafter, under Section 7 thereof. The land situated in Survey No.48/1B of Vepagunta Village is classified as "Zeroyati" or "Jirayati" in the Survey and Settlement Register ("Gilman Register") of the year 1903, which is an authentic official record prepared under the provisions of BSO-1 (after conducting settlement) and the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897, (after conducting survey operations). The land in 3 question is not shown as "Inam" in the Gilman Register. This expression ("Zeroyati") clearly shows that the land in question is not Inam land and that it was not endowed by the land holder. "Zeroyati" means proprietor's private lands, which are cultivable and such land does not form part of the grant of Inam in favour of the temple. The Khata Number is shown as "12" in the Gillman Register, in relation to the land in Survey No.48/1B and the name of the temple is nowhere found against the said survey number. As such, the 2nd respondent cannot claim that the "Zeroyati" land in question could belong to it. The land was covered by a building earlier and the same was effected by road widening and hence, the petitioners lost an extent of 43 sq.yds of land and left with only 221 sq.yds (out of the original 264 sq.yds). The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation issued Transferable Development Right (TDR) Certificate (Rc.No.09/09/ACP-VI, dated 12.08.2014), under the provisions of the relevant statutory Rules, permitting development rights for an extent of 72.12 sq.mts (86.26 sq.yds). Thus, the petitioners started construction of a new building over the land and the contiguous land, by entering into an understanding with the owner of the neighboring land, by duly transferring the TDR to M/s. M.S. Ramayya Constructions Pvt. Ltd, since the same is permissible in law. Notwithstanding the fact that the GVMC, recognizing petitioners' rights, had granted T.D.R. under the relevant statutory Rules and therefore, petitioners or the transferee thereof, are entitled to make constructions, under the said benefit. However, the officials of 2nd respondent 4 temple, under the instructions of the 3rd respondent, have been frequently visiting the land and have been interfering with the legitimate activity, without issuing any notice and without initiating any proceedings. Hence, the petitioners filed W.P.No.38835 of 2014 and this Court by order dated 18.12.2014 granted interim direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of the said property. Several constructions are coming up in the area basing on the TDRs issued to the respective owners, whose land had been effected in the road widening process, for the purpose of Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS), who are similarly situated. But the petitioners have been singled out by the officials of the 2nd respondent temple. The 3rd respondent, Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent temple, in order to circumvent the interim direction in W.P.No.38835 of 2014, has issued proceedings Rc.No.C8/4667/2014-3, dated 12.12.2014 4th respondent requesting that the TDR certificates issued in petitioners' favour by the GVMC, should be cancelled. The contention in the said proceedings is that the subject land belongs to the 2nd respondent temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court, vide order, dated 31.12.2014 directed the 4th respondent not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 221 square yards, situated in Survey No.48/1B of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam 5 district. Further, this Court has suspended the proceedings in Rc.No.C8/4667/2014-3, dated 12.12.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent.
4. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam is a public religious Institution published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/87. The temple and its properties were already registered under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 30/87. The management and administration of the temple and its properties are being governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act and the rules framed there under. As such, if at all the petitioners got any claim over the subject matter property; they should have approached the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30/87, which is a statutory remedy. It is further stated that any sale, lease or gift of any property belonging to a Religious Institution made without prior permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad or Government are null and void under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/1987. The alleged documents relied on by the petitioners are not genuine and are null and void and unenforceable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6
5. Heard Mr.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.1 as well as Mr.Batchu Jagadish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the 3rd respondent does not have jurisdiction or authority in law to issue proceedings, directing the 4th respondent to cancel the TRD Certificates issued to the writ petitioners, in as much as the same have been issued in exercise of statutory power conferred under Rule 17 of the A.P. Building Rules, 2012, which are statutory rules framed in exercise of power conferred under the GHMC Act, 1955 and the 3rd respondent has no role at all, under the scheme of these statutory rules. He further submits that the 2nd respondent cannot unilaterally seek to assert its alleged title over the land in question, by means of the Executive Officer, issuing directions to the 4th respondent, to revoke the TDR Certificates, which are statutory benefits granted for the land lost in road widening. Thus, the impugned proceedings amount to abuse of official position by the 3rd respondent and the action amounts to malice in law. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7
7. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioners herein filed an application before the respondent-Devasthanam with a request to accord permission for construction of building in the subject land. A letter was addressed to the petitioners on 12.12.2014 by informing them not to make any construction activities in the land situated in Survey No.48/1B of Vepagunta Village under the guise of TDR as the lands belongs to the Devasthanam and sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment. But the same was returned with endorsement as "no such door number 5-42/6 in Rangireeju Veedhi, Visakhapatnam". He further submits that whoever lost their houses under BRTS project, they can construct houses within the limitation of the TDRs, but the petitioners are trying to construct a multi-stored building with an understanding with M/S. M.S. Ramayya Construction in an extent of 221 square yards as against the TDR extent of 43 square yards. Further, the petitioners without exhausting alternative statutory remedies directly filed this writ petition by suppressing the real facts, with a malafide intention to grab the land which is hitherto under the peaceful possession of this Devasthanam and got interim directions. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Perused the record.
8
9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, there is a serious dispute between the petitioners and the respondents with regard to the title over the subject land. In such circumstances, the remedy lies before the Endowments Tribunal.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, either of the parties have to approach the Endowments Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. Therefore, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition, with the following directions:
i. Granting liberty to either of the parties i.e., the writ petitioners as well as the respondent temple authorities to approach the Endowments Tribunal by way of filing Interlocutary Applications as well as Original Applications for redressal of their grievance, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. On filing such applications, the Endowments Tribunal shall decide the same on merits within four (04) weeks thereafter.
iii. Further, the respondent temple authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' subject land till disposal of the said Interlocutary Applications.
11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 21-02-2025 BMS