Telangana High Court
Sri Kumkumeswara Swamy Temple, vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Endowments, on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27087 of 2006
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed by Sri Kumkumeswara Swamy Temple, Parkal Village and Mandal, aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2006 passed by respondent No.5-Joint Collector, Warangal, confirming the order passed by respondent No.6-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, dated 07.01.1994 in granting Occupation Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of the unofficial respondent No.2.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The petitioner Temple constructed during the period of Kakatiyas' Dynasty in the year 1265 A.D. and the same was registered under Section 43 (10) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called, the 'Act') and it was categorized under Section 6(c)(ii) of the 'Act'. One Korikala Venkateswara Rao, who was the devotee of the Temple, donated the dry land to an extent of Ac.4.11 gts. to the petitioner Temple to perform 'Nitya Kainkaryaradhanam' and also for maintenance. The petitioner Temple is having lands to an extent of Ac.7.00 cents approximately and the said Inam lands are classified into 'Deval Inam' and are in the nature of "Masruthal Khidmat Inam lands", it means it is a conditional Inam lands, which can be enjoyed JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 2 by the Poojari for performing the pooja to deity in the Temple and the said lands cannot be alienated.
2.2. The said Deval Inam land to an extent of Ac.5.33 gts. were given to one Thammala Muthulingam for rendering Archakatvam to the Temple. After his death, his successor namely, Thammala Ankaiah rendered Archakatvam. After his death, his wife Siddamma filed an application before the Tahasildar on 18th Bai, 1330 Fasli for grant of succession. During the course of enquiry, Siddamma had given sworn statement that her husband was the holder of the conditional Inam as he rendered service for the petitioner Temple and she also stated that except her and her younger mother-in-law, no other surviving heirs to her deceased husband. She further stated that she appointed her brother Sambaiah for rendering the services to the Temple and she also submitted a copy of the Muntakab. Petitioner further stated that the witnesses who appeared before the enquiry also stated that the subject lands are conditional Inam lands. The then Tahasildar, while observing that the deceased Thammala Ankaiah was the holder of the Muntakab, issued Memorandum 34, dated 4th Thir, 1327 Fasli and held that Maash is Mashruthul Kidmat (subject to performance of services). The above said Maash has been released perpetually, which is evident from the perusal of the Munthakab and granted succession of late Ankaiah to Siddamma to the extent of 50% and the remaining 50% was kept in the name of JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 3 Smt.Ramalakshmamma, who is none other than the younger mother-
in-law of Siddamma, as Shikmi on 13.02.1331 Fasli. The same was approved by the then Deputy Collector on 22.02.1331 Fasli. 2.3. Petitioner further stated that Smt.Siddamma had never stated before the then Tahasildar that her brother-Kunduru Sambaiah was adopted as her son. On the other hand, she stated that she appointed her brother Kuduru Sambaiah as Archaka to render service to the Temple and she executed the Will Deed on 21.06.1973, in which she stated that during the life time of her husband, she had no children and the subject lands inherited to her were given in lieu of rendering services to the petitioner Temple. During the life time of Sambaiah, she brought Uppala Venkataiah to look after the house and agriculture as well as to render service to the Temple and she is no where mentioned that she adopted her brother Kunduru Sambaiah and Uppala Venkataiah. Hence, the question of adoption of her brother Kunduru Sambaiah does not arise and Uppala Venkataiah is no way related either to Siddamma or to Kunduru Sambaiah. Hence, mutating the lands of the petitioner Temple in the name of Uppala Rajubayyamma, who is the mother of Uppala Venkataiah, does not arise and as such the mutation is not valid one. At any point of time, no body produced the succession certificates before the authorities. Respondent No.5 erroneously dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Temple without verifying the records and without observing JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 4 the different surnames of Kunduru Sambaiah and Uppala Venkataiah, who were alleged to have been adopted by Smt.Siddamma and after the death of Kunduru Sambaiah, Smt.Siddamma executed registered Will Deed in favour of Uppala Venkataiah, who is the only son of her adopted son. After her death, mutation proceedings were issued in favour of Uppala Venkataiah on the basis of the Will Deed dated 21.06.1973 executed by Smt.Siddamma. In the said Will Deed, it is clearly mentioned that the lands belongs to the Temple Inam Lands.
2.4. The petitioner further stated that admittedly the subject lands are Inam Lands classified under Deval Inam and it cannot be mutated to some other persons' names whose surnames are not at all Thammala and in the absence of any pleadings that Kunduru Sambaiah was adopted by Smt.Siddamma and without there being any proof of adoption, respondent Nos.5 and 6 erred in holding that Kunduru Sambaiah is the adopted son of Thammala Ankaiah. 2.5. When the petitioner Temple came to know that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are going to sell away the Temple Inam Lands made a representation to the Sub-Collector on 22.08.1985. The Sub-Collector after due verification of the records and Vasul Bakhi held that the land in Sy.No.1092 corresponding to new Survey No.992 admeasuring Ac.4.11 gts. is Mashruthul Kidmat Inam land. In the said proceedings, Kunduru Venkataiah submitted that his paternal aunt-
JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 5 Smt.Thammala Siddamma got the petitioner Temple Inam Lands. In the Will Deed dated 21.06.1973 also specifically mentioned that the lands in issue are belongs to the petitioner Temple. The Sub-Collector after perusal of the entire material on record had ordered that the Temple Inam lands in issue be resumed in favour of the Government with immediate effect vide proceedings in Rc.No.G/7465/85, dated 03.12.1985.
2.6. That respondent No.2 made a representation to respondent No.4 for rectification of error in respect of the subject lands. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.5 conducted enquiry and sent proposal under Section 87 of the AP (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, (herein after called as '1317 Fasli' for brevity) to the Commissioner. On approval, the Collector had issued Supplementary Sethwar vide Lr.nop.K4/1125/93 dated 04.11.1993 changing the classification of the land from 'Deveal Inam' to 'Mafi Inam', which is contrary to the provisions of the 'Act'. Basing on the said proceedings, respondent No.6 had issued impugned ORC under the 'Act' vide proceedings No.D/8143/85 dated 07.01.1994 even without impleading the petitioner Temple as party respondent.
2.7. Respondent No.2 filed W.P.No.24026 of 1995 questioning the action of the respondents therein in not implementing the orders passed by respondent No.4 and the said writ petition was disposed of JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 6 on 26.12.1995 with a direction to implement the orders of respondent No.4 within a period of three months. When the respondents therein failed to implement the orders, respondent No.2 filed C.C.No.1465 of 1996. In view of the same, the respondents therein have implemented the orders and issued Proceedings Rc.No.B/504/86 dated 16.01.1997.
2.8. After came to know about the said facts, petitioner temple filed W.P.No.17964 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 26.03.2004 permitting the petitioner Temple to raise all objections in the appeal before the appropriate authority. Pursuant to the same, petitioner Temple filed appeal before respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.E5/4181/2004 under Section 24(i) of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 read with Section 18 of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1975 (hereinafter called brevity as the 'Act') and the same was transferred to respondent No.5 and the said authority without giving opportunity dismissed the appeal, by its order dated 07.07.2006, and the same is clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner inter alia contending that the subject lands are covered in Old Survey Nos.1091, 1092 and 657 co-related to 991 and 603 to an extent of Ac.5.33 gunts of Parkal Village of Warangal District and they are personal Mafi Inam Lands. Originally, one late Thammala Mutthilingam was original pattadar and he died leaving JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 7 behind his son, namely, Thammala Ankaiah. After the death of Thammala Ankaiah, his wife Siddamma became the legal heir and Inamdar. The said Siddamma adopted her younger brother Kunduru Sambaiah and he died in May 1993 even before death of Siddamma. The said Kunduru Sambaiah died leaving behind his sister Smt.Siddamma, his wife Rajubayamma and son Thammala Venkataiah. Thammala Venkataiah married Bharathamma and said Bharathamma died even before her husband Venkataiah. Thammala Siddhamma executed registered Will Deed in favour Thammala Venkataiah and he was issued ORC and also mutated his name in revenue records. Thammala Venkataiah died on 02.19.1993 leaving behind his mother Rajubaymma as his legal heir.
3.1. It is further stated that Rajubayamma made a representation before the Collector for rectification of error in the revenue records. Basing on the same, he conducted enquiry and sent proposal to the Commissioner of Endowments and he had given consent for the said proposal. Accordingly, supplementary Sethwar was issued by the District Collector, Warangal, after taking clarification from the Director, Survey and Land Records, Warangal. The said proceedings have been issued after considering the claim of the endowment department. In the said proceedings, they specifically mentioned that the land in Sy.Nos.603 and 991 of Parkal Village are recorded as Mafi Inam Lands and in 1955 they were recorded as Deval Inam instead of JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 8 personal Mafi Inam. It is stated that Rajubayamma applied for ORC as a legal heir of Venkataiah, to whom already ORC was issued. The District Collector after due verification of the records directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue ORC in favour of Rajubayamma by making necessary corrections in the revenue records by its order dated 08.07.1994. When the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to issue ORC, Rajubayamma filed W.P.No.24026 of 1995 for seeking implementation of the orders passed by the District Collector dated 08.07.1994 and the same was disposed on 26.12.1995 directing the respondents therein to implement the orders of the District Collector. As the respondents have not implemented the orders passed in the writ petition, Rajubayamma filed C.C.No.1465 of 1996 and during the pendency of the contempt case, the respondents therein implemented the said order and confirmed the order of the Collector dated 08.07.1994 and issued ORC in favour of Rajubayamma on 07.01.1994.
3.2. It is further stated that the petitioner Temple filed W.P.No.17964 of 1997 against issuance of ORC in favour of Rajubayamma. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.03.2004 directing the petitioner Temple to file appeal before the appellate Authority by fixing time limit. Thereafter, the petitioner Temple filed appeal before respondent No.5. The appellate authority after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also after JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 9 due verification of the records rightly dismissed the appeal by its order dated 07.07.2006 and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order and the petitioner Temple is not entitled to any relief, as sought in the writ petition.
4. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 claims that they were appointed as non- hereditary trustees of petitioner Temple by respondent No.2 vide Proceedings No.C/2238/2005 dated 28.04.2006. They submit that petitioner Temple has given an extent of Ac.4.11 guntas on lease to the Gram Panchayat, Parkal, and the said land is being utilized for Cattle Shandy (Pasuvula Santha) and the said lease is extended from time to time and Gram Panchayat is paying rent to the Temple. Respondent No.4 changed the classification of the land at the instance of respondent No.2, though respondent No.4 is not having any power or authority to issue proceedings under Section 87 of the 'Act' to correct the classification of the land, and the entire proceedings are void and the subject land is belonging to the petitioner Temple only and the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 are contrary to the law.
5. Heard Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Temple, and Sri P.Mehar Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.10 to 12, Sri Ajij Hussain, learned counsel, representing Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9, learned Assistant JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 10 Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.1.
6. Learned standing counsel for the petitioner Temple contended that originally Korikala Venkateswara Rao donated the land to an extent of Ac.4.11 gts. to the petitioner Temple to perform Nitya Kainkaryaradhanam and also for maintenance of the Temple and subject land is Deval Inam land. Petitioner Temple has given an extent of Ac.5.33 gts. of land to one Thammala Muthulingam, for rendering daily Pooja and Nithya Kainkaryaradhanam. After his death, his son Thammala Ankaiah rendered Archakatvam. The subject lands are classified as Deval Inam lands and the successors of said Thammala Muthulingam have made an application before respondent No.6 for issuance of ORC under the provisions of the 'Act'. Respondent No.6 without verifying the records and without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner Temple issued ORC in favour of Kuduru (Thammala) Rajubayamma on 07.01.1994. He vehemently contended that as per the provision of Section 4(1) of the 'Act', respondent No.6 is not having authority or jurisdiction to issue ORC in respect of the subject lands belonging to the Temple. He further contended that the subject property is Deval Inam Land given by the original pattadar for the benefit of Chairtable and Religious Institutions and no persons shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act and the Institution JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 11 alone is entitled to be registered as an occupant of all Inam lands other than those satisfied in clause (a) and (c) of the Act. Hence, respondent No.4 is not having authority to pass order changing the nature of Inam from Deval Inam Land to Mafi Inam Land invoking the provisions of '1317 Fasli'. Hence, entire proceedings including ORC issued by respondent No.4 and consequential proceedings issued by respondent No.6 dated 07.01.1994 in favour of respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of the 'Act'.
7. He further contended that immediately after came to know about the issuance of ORC, petitioner Temple approached this Court and filed W.P.No.17964 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 26.03.2004 with a direction to the petitioner Temple to file appeal before the appellate authority and further directed the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders on merits. Pursuant to the same, petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.5 under Section 24(1) of the 'Act' by raising several grounds. The appellate authority without considering the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and also without verifying the records simply dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons by its order dated 07.07.2006. The order passed by the respondent No.5 is contrary to the settled principles of law and also violative of principles of natural justice.
8. Per contra, Sri Mehar Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, vehemently contended that the petitioner Temple has not produced JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 12 any evidence before the primary authority or appellate authority or before this Court that the subject land given to Thammala Muthilingam to render service. Admittedly, the subject land is a Mafi Inam Land and respondent No.6 rightly issued ORC in favour of Smt.Rajubayamma after following the due procedure as contemplated under law and the appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal. He further contended that the petitioner without questioning the orders passed by respondent No.4 under the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, filed the appeal before respondent No.5 and the order passed by respondent No.4 has become final. Unless and until the petitioner challenges the Sethwar proceedings issued by respondent No.4 changing the nature of the land from Deval Inam Land to Mafi Inam Land, the petitioner Temple is not having any right to question the consequential order issued by respondent No.6 exercising the powers conferred under the 'Act' in granting ORC in favour of Smt.Rajubayamma.
9. He further submits that the concerned Endowment authorities are also admitted that the unofficial respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for grant of ORC. He further submits that the provision of Section 4(1) of the 'Act' is not applicable to the case on hand, as the 'Act' is came into force with effect from 26.12.1985 and the same is only prospective nature and the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief as prayed in the writ petition.
JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 13
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 9 supports the claim of the petitioner Temple. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos.10 to 12 and they have to approach the competent Court to resolve the disputed questions of facts.
11. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner Temple is claiming the rights over the property to an extent of Ac.7.00 gts., out of the said extent one Korikala Venkateswara Rao, who is the devotee of petitioner Temple, donated an extent of 4.11 gts. of dry land for performing Nitya Kainkaryaradhanam and also for maintainenance and the nature of the said lands are classified as "Deval Inam Lands". The specific claim of the petitioner is that petitioner Temple has given an extent of Ac.5.33 gts. to Sri Thammala Muthulingam for rendering Archakatvam and after his death, his successor namely Thammala Ankaiah rendered Archakatvam and after the death of Thammala Ankaiah, his wife Smt.Siddamma claiming rights over the said property contending that the nature of lands were converted from Deval Inam Lands to Mafi Inam. It further reveals from the record that basing on the letter dated 04.11.1993 issued by respondent No.4, JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 14 respondent No.6 had granted ORC in favour of respondent No.2 under the provisions of the 'Act' on 07.01.1994.
12. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner Temple filed W.P.No.17964 of 1997 before this Court and the same was disposed on 26.03.2004 directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before appellate authority by raising all the grounds. Accordingly, petitioner filed appeal under the provisions of Section 24(i) of the 'Act' before respondent No.5.
13. It is also very much relevant to place on record that in the said appeal, the petitioner Temple has raised several grounds disputing the adoption and also disputing the nature of the land and the land is Masruthal Khidmat Inam Land and it is not alienable as it is a conditional Inam Land.
14. The appellate authority, simply extracting the contentions of both the parties and mentioning the judgments, dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons. It is also relevant to mention here that respondent No.5 while exercising the quasi-judicial powers under Section 24(i) of the 'Act', ought to have give reasons by considering all the grounds raised by the parties. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 is contrary to the settled principles of law.
15. It is relevant to extract the proviso of Section 4 (1) of the 'Act', which reads as follows:
JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 15 "Provided that where inams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than those specified in clauses (a) and (c) above without restriction of extent to four and half time the family holding and without the condition of personal cultivation:
Provided further that where any person other than the concerned charitable or religious institution has been registered an occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Aboliton fo Inams (Amendment) 'Act', 1985 such registration shall and shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall given to such registration." The above said 'proviso' clearly says that where the Inams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and religions institutions, no persons shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of Inam land.
16. In the case on hand, the petitioner Temple is claiming the rights over the property from Korikala Venkateswara Rao, who donated the same in favour of the Temple for maintenance and Nithyakainkaryam, and subject land is Masruthal Khidmat and except the petitioner temple, no one is entitled to be registered as on occupant of Inam land. Whereas, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are claiming the rights through Thammala Muthulingam. The specific claim of petitioner is that respondent No.6 without giving notice and opportunity and JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 16 without examining the provisions of the 'Act' issued ORC in favour of respondent No.2 vide order dated 07.01.1994 and the same is clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
17. It is also relevant to place on record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed 1 relying upon the judgment of S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 2 held that the quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. It is already stated supra that respondent No.5 without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal and without giving any reasons including applicability of provision of Section 4(i) of the 'Act' dismissed the appeal and the same is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and respondent No.5 is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after considering the contentions of both parties and after giving opportunity to the petitioner Temple and unofficial respondents including personal hearing, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject 1 2010 (9) SCC 496 2 AIR 1990 SC 1984 JSR, J W.P.No.27087 of 2006 17 property. It is needless to observe that the both the parties are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available in law.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:22.01.2024 mar