Smt.Y.Satyamma And 3 Ors vs The Endowments Department And 3 Ors on 26 September, 2024

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Smt.Y.Satyamma And 3 Ors vs The Endowments Department And 3 Ors on 26 September, 2024

Bench: G.Radha Rani

           THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.594 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants- respondent Nos.3 to 6 aggrieved by the orders dated 06.06.2017 passed in O.A No.368 of 2010 (Old O.A No.119 of 2007) by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal').

2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the applicants. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The applicants filed the O.A. under Section 83(1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 initially to declare them as encroachers and for their eviction.

4. The case of the applicants was that Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple was situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and its affairs were being managed by the Manager. The institution was under the control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District. The Inspector, Endowments Department, during his visit came to know that 2 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had illegally encroached the premises of the above temple. The Manager of the temple issued a notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a direction to vacate the endowment land in Sy.Nos.435 and 446 to an extent of Acs.4.26 gts. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 neither paid the rents nor vacated the premises. As such, gave a report to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department to initiate proposals under the prescribed proforma under Section 83 of the Act.

4.1 The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter contending that the schedule property was not an Endowment property and did not belong to Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It was their ancestral property, got under the provisions of A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1950. The respondents No.1 and 2 and their forefathers were enjoying the property since decades, initially being protected tenants and later being absolute owners of the schedule land. At no point of time either the temple administration or Endowment authorities had any dealing, administration interference with regard to schedule property. There was no material whatsoever to treat the property as governed under the provisions of the Act, 1987 and to treat respondents 3 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 1 and 2 either as lessees or encroachers. The Endowment Act had no application and the authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. The present O.A. was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed.

4.2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 further contended that originally the property belonged to one Raghava Chary, who was the pattedar to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts., in Sy.No.435 and Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy, father of respondent No.1 and grandfather of respondent No.2 being protected tenant. Likewise one Sulsusarapu Basu was the pattedar to an extent of Acs.2.28 gts in Sy.No.446 and Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy, father of respondent No.1 and grandfather of respondent No.2 was tenant since many decades. The name of Sri Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy was registered in the Protected Tenancy Register, which conferred absolute rights on him by virtue of operation of provisions of A.P (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1950, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. The original pattedars sold their other agricultural lands and other properties for which, the said Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy was rendering services as tenant, left the village without making any claim leaving the subject lands to Sri Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy and thus they 4 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 became absolute owners and enjoying the property since decades without any interruption till date, generations together. 4.3. Sri Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy died about 15 years ago and after the death of said Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy, the respondents became the absolute owners of the schedule land and were cultivating the same without any obstruction or objection from anybody. Late Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy was having three sons by name,

1) Sri Achireddy, 2) Sri Narasimha Reddy and 3) Sri Sathya Reddy. During the life time of late Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy, he partitioned the property between his three sons and thus Achireddy got Ac.0.37 gts in Sy.No.435 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.446 (totalling Ac.1.17 gts) and Narasimha Reddy got Ac.1.25 gts in Sy.No.446 and Sathya Reddy got Ac.0.37 gts in Sy.No.435 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.446 (totalling Ac.1.17 gts) and they were enjoying their share of lands exclusively and were paying the land revenue regularly. Sri Achireddy was no more and his son Venkat Reddy became the absolute owner of the share of property of Achireddy. Sri Narasimha Reddy sold away his share of property to some third parties against whom no proceedings were initiated.

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 4.4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that they became absolute owners of the schedule lands and were enjoying the same with exclusive and peaceful possession. The family of late Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy were strong devotees of Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple and they used to donate some amount to the temple for the development of the temple and for the yearly Utsavas for their family God. The same was continued after the death of late Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy. The respondents could preserve some receipts towards donation to the temple. Earlier, Sri Narasimha Reddy was looking after the records relating to the lands and some more donation receipts were held up with him. The said payment was made towards donation as per their family custom. However, they came to know that such customary payment of donation was misused in a different manner, which the respondents were not aware being illiterates. The authorities treating the donations made by them as receipts towards lease amounts, would not constitute as estoppel and would not have any statutory right conferred on them under the provisions of Tenancy Act. The temple authorities were no way concerned with the schedule lands. The subject property was never registered as endowed property either in the 38 register or in 43 register 6 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 under Endowments Act. There was no material to show that the respondents were inducted as tenants in the schedule premises. They made an application on 20-07-2007 to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, R.R.District as well as to the Manager of Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple and also in person to the Assistant Commissioner, requesting them to supply the extracts of 38 register regarding the entries with reference to subject lands to ascertain and to clear doubts. But, they did not respond. They also made applications to the revenue authorities to supply certified copies of khasra pahanis and other relevant records, so as to file counter affidavits with effective pleadings. The revenue authorities replied that the said documents were not readily available for the time being vide endorsement dated 17-07-2007. Non supply of the said extracts also would confirm the facts contended by them and an adverse inference should be presumed to that effect that the property shall not be treated as the one belonging to the temple. The subject property was not included in the statement showing the particulars of the endowments land in the Ranga Reddy District against Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, though it was stated that the 7 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 said temple owned an extent of Ac.33.38 gts., in several survey numbers.

4.5. They further contended that Section 83 of Endowments Act had no application. The question of termination of lease would not arise in the present case as it was totally without following due process of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Section 82 of Endowments Act. The respondent No.1 was holding an extent of land Ac.1.17 gts (Ac.0.37 gts in Sy.No.435 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.446). The respondent No.2 was holding a total extent of Ac.1.17 gts (Ac.0:37 gts in Sy.No.435 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.446). The subject land was a dry land. Even presuming that it was a wet land, the question of termination of lease would not arise in view of the protection under Section 82 without following due process of law and Rule 5 of Lease Rules. The present proceedings were initiated in gross violation of statutory provisions and lease rules framed under the statute. 4.6. They further submitted that the lands belonging to Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple in part of Sy.No.523 of Attapur Village were already sold away by the so called trustee Sri Madhava Chary through registered sale deed Nos.1541/97 dated 12-06-1997, 333/99 dated 01-04-1999 and through some other transactions and agreement of 8 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 sales relating to other extents. To cover up the same and to cover up the failure of the Manager in recovering the said properties, the case was filed against the innocent illiterate respondents making them as scapegoats.

4.7. They further contended that as the respondents were claiming title over the schedule property adjudicating the present proceedings under Section 83 of the Act was impermissible, the same required collection of some more material. They further contended that initiation of proceedings under Section 83 of the Act was contrary to law and prayed to dismiss the proceedings by imposing heavy costs.

5. The applicants got impleaded the respondent Nos.3 and 4. They filed their counter contending that Yenugula Sathya Reddy (R1) and Venkat Reddy (R2) filed counter as respondents 1 & 2 with a malafide intention to grab the lands belonging to the respondents 3 & 4. Even the respondent No.1 impersonated his father's name as Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy which was incorrect. His father's name was Yenugula Venkat Reddy. The respondent No.1 filed his counter alleging that Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy was having three sons namely Achi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and Sathya Reddy and during the lifetime of Pentaiah 9 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 @ Penta Reddy, the properties were partitioned between the three sons and they were enjoying the property, which was totally incorrect and far from the truth.

5.1 They further contended that Yenugula Penta Reddy and Yenugula Venkat Reddy were real brothers and they were separated about 70 years back. Yenugula Penta Reddy died 30 years ago leaving his only son Yenugula Narsimha Reddy. Said Yenugula Narsimha Reddy also died five years ago leaving behind Smt. Yenugula Sathyamma and Yenugula Jayamma the respondents 3 & 4 herein. Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy was the only protected tenant over Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.1-38 guntas and Ac.2-28 guntas in Sy.No.446, totaling Ac.4-26 guntas situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District, as evident from the tenancy records and subsequent pahanies. His son Yenugula Narsimha Reddy's name was also found in the pahanies. He used to pay the land revenue to the above survey numbers for which he obtained receipts from the Tahsil Office. Yenugula Penta Reddy was issued Pouthi Book during the year 1950 under ROR Act 1971. A pass book was also issued to him. The respondents 3 & 4 were the only legal heirs to Yenugula Penta Reddy, but not the respondents 1 & 2. The respondents 1 & 2 had no right and claim whatsoever manner in the suit 10 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 property. Sri Yenugula Venkat Reddy died leaving behind him (1) Y.Achi Reddy eldest son and (2) Y.Sathya Reddy youngest son (the respondent 1 herein). Yenugula Venkat Reddy was having three wives. Yenugula Achi Reddy was born to Yenugula Pentamma, who was the first wife of Yenugula Venkat Reddy, the father of the respondent No.1 and grandfather of respondent No.3. Yenugula Sathya Reddy, the respondent No.1 was born to Yenugula Veeramma, who was the second wife of Yenugula Venkat Reddy. Yenugula Yadi Reddy was born to the third wife of Yenugula Venkat Reddy. Y.Achi Reddy died leaving behind him (1) Yenugula Venkat Reddy eldest son, (respondent No.2) herein, (2) Yenugula Krishna Reddy and (3) Y.Narayan Reddy. But only Y.Venkat Reddy S/o.Achi Reddy appeared before the Court and suppressing the real facts filed counter misguiding this Court. 5.2 The respondent Nos.3 and 4 further submitted that Ac.1.38 gts of land in Sy.No.435, Ac.2.28 gts of land in Sy.No.446 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District were patta lands standing in the name of Sulsusarapu Basu and Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy respectively. Yenugula Pentaiah alias Penta Reddy was the registered protected tenant as was evident from the tenancy record, which would confirm absolute rights on him. Subsequently, after demise 11 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 of Sri.Yenugula Penta Reddy, his son Sri.Yenugula Narsimha Reddy was in continuous possession of the said lands as the land was purchased by Penta Reddy from the original pattedar. Therefore, Penta Reddy and his son Narsimha Reddy and their legal heirs, the respondents 3 & 4 were only entitled for the suit land in Sy.No.435 and 446 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 5.3. It was further contended that the contention of the applicants that the lands belonged to Endowment department and that they were given on lease to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not correct. The Assistant Commissioner Endowment Department, R.R.District taking action under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 was in violation of the Tenancy Act. The Endowment Department had no right to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act against agricultural tenants. Section 83 was very clear that action could be taken only on encroachers, but the respondents 3 & 4 were not encroachers, but they were recorded protected tenants. The Assistant Commissioner Endowment Department, R.R.District had not mentioned the details regarding the endowed property, who had endowed the property when protected tenancy was existing, when the property had been registered as endowment property without the consent 12 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 of the protected tenant, who had donated the property when protected tenant was in possession of the land, and that the lands were endowed and registered without the consent of the protected tenant. The action of the Assistant Commissioner was in violation of the said Act and Tenancy Act. The initiation of the proceedings under Section 83 of the A.P. Endowment Act 1987 was not warranted. The Assistant Commissioner had not issued any notice to the respondents 3 & 4 who were the legal representatives of Y.Penta Reddy protected tenant to submit their grievances before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, R.R.District. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, R.R.District was in violation of the Act and against the principles of natural justice. The Manager, Endowments Department of the Temple had no jurisdiction to issue tenancy termination notice dated 30.10.2006 against the respondents 1 & 2 without making the respondents 3 & 4 as necessary parties. Therefore, the action of the Manager, Endowments Department of the Temple was in violation of the Act and Rules and prayed to reject the proposed proceedings in file No.C/764/03 dated 03.04.2007 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District in respect of Sy.Nos.435 and 446 of Attapur Village. 13

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017

6. The respondents 5 & 6 got impleaded themselves as per the order in I.A No.1027 of 2011, dated 01.11.2011 contending that they purchased an extent of Ac.1.15 gts., land out of the extent of Acs.2.38 gts in Sy.No.446 from Y.Narasimha Reddy, Y.Sathya Reddy (R3) and Y.Jayamma (R4). They filed their counter in a similar manner to that of respondent Nos.3 and 4. They further submitted that Yenugula Venkat Reddy died leaving behind him (1) Y.Achi Reddy eldest son and (2) Y.Sathya Reddy youngest son who was the respondent No.1 herein. Yenugula Venkat Reddy was having three wives. Sri Yenugula Achi Reddy was born to Yenugula Pentamma who was the first wife of Yenugula Venkat Reddy, the respondent No.1 was born to Yenugula Veeramma, who was the second wife of Yenugula Venkat Reddy. Yenugula Yadi Reddy was born to third wife of Yenugula Venkat Reddy. Y.Achi Reddy died leaving behind him (1) Yenugula Venkat Reddy eldest son, (respondent No.2) herein, (2) Yenugula Krishna Reddy and (3) Y.Narayan Reddy. But only Y.Venkat Reddy, S/o.Achi Reddy appeared before the Tribunal and suppressing the real facts, he filed counter misguiding the Tribunal. They filed their counter in a similar manner as that of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and prayed to reject the proposed proceedings.

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017

7. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues as follows:

1. Whether the respondents are the encroachers of the property of the petitioner's temple, U/s.83 of the Act 30/87 and are liable to be evicted?

2. To what result?

8. The Manager of the second applicant temple was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the applicants. The respondent No.1 and his son were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on their behalf. The respondent No.4 was examined as RW.3 on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Exs.B13 to B21 were marked on their behalf. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 were examined as R.Ws.4 and 5. No documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf.

9. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, observed that as per Ex.A1 one Raghava Chary was granted with inam lands for rendering services to Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple. As such, his name must have mentioned in Ex.B9/Sethwar Patrika as account holder of the land covered by Sy.No.435, in view of his rendering services to the temple as its pujari in the pahani patrikas 15 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 executed by either side for the earlier years, the pattedar column, the name of the pattedar was not noted in it and it was noted as Lawarish, whereas the name of Y.Pentaiah was shown as possessor. However, in the pahanies of subsequent years i.e., from 1972-73, the name of the second applicant temple was shown as pattedar and Y.Pentaiah was shown as possessor. In the possessory column of the recent year pahani patrikas, the name of the lineal descendants of Y.Pentaiah alias Penta Reddy was shown and in the pattedar column the name of second applicant was shown as owner. The contention of the respondents was that the applicants by managing the revenue authorities incorporated the name of second applicant temple in the pahani patrikas from the years 1972-73 onwards. If at all there was any substance behind that contention, then the respondents would not have kept quiet for all the years and they would have agitated against the alleged unauthorized or illegal entries before the revenue authorities and would have asked for rectification of the records.

10. With regard to the contention of the respondents that Y.Pentaiah was the protected tenant of the O.A schedule lands, the Tribunal observed that all types of agricultural lands (either inam or patta or otherwise) governed by A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions 16 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 and Endowments Act, the provision of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 21/1950, had no application, as such, Y.Pentaiah could not be said to be protected tenant under the Act 21/1950, in view of Section 102(d) of the Act, which excludes the application of the Act 21/1950 to the religious and charitable inam lands. As such, the question of granting protected tenancy certificate for the religious and charitable inam lands in favour of any person in cultivation would not arise.

11. The Tribunal had accepted the lease payment receipts marked by the applicants wherein it was mentioned as 'Makan Malik' and as such, observed that they could not be assumed as donation receipts to the temple. The Tribunal further observed that the evidence on record was making it clear that the O.A. schedule lands were the endowed lands of the second applicant temple and the respondents were in possession of them as encroachers. As such, allowed the O.A. with costs declaring the respondents as encroachers of the O.A. schedule lands and directed them to deliver vacant physical possession of the O.A. schedule lands to the second applicant temple within two months from the date of the order.

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017

12. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

13. Heard Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Bhati, learned counsel representing Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned Standing counsel for the Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal had not stated anything about the title of the applicants. The order of the Tribunal would not refer to any document to show that the schedule land was registered as inam land or Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) was issued, no particular individual endowed the land to the institution with absolute title and no such record was exhibited except making some vague contentions. The respondent filed several documents to show that it was a protected tenant land. There were procedural laws in vogue for initiating proceedings under Section 83(1) of the Act. Notice to be issued to the encroacher, accompanied by public notice and the Assistant Commissioner had to submit a report and the petition should enclose the report of the Assistant Commissioner to show that an enquiry was conducted, but no enquiry was conducted by the Assistant 18 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 Commissioner to show whether the schedule properties were included in the Endowment Register. The Tribunal had gone by the presumption that the schedule lands were service inam lands. The Tribunal erred in conferring title on the temple without any ORC certificate. The power of the Tribunal was confined to declare a person as an encroacher or not. The observations of the Tribunal enlarged its scope. For any title dispute, the parties have to approach a civil court. The observations of the Tribunal would run contrary to the constitutional judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Balreddy Vs.Teegala Narayana Reddy and others 1, wherein Section 76 was struck down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondent authorities ought to have filed a suit for declaration under Section 87 (c), but straightaway initiated proceedings for eviction under Section 83(1) without resorting to Section 87. No document was filed before the Tribunal to show that the schedule properties were inam lands or onerous with any service. In the absence of an ORC, title was conferred on the institution by the Tribunal. PW.2 conceded in his cross examination that they were not having an ORC. The issue of title could not be decided by the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Endowments Act and contended that the respondents might be 1 2016 (6) ALD 7 SC 19 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 directed to approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights over the property and prayed to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A No.368 of 2010 (Old O.A No.119 of 2007) dated 06.06.2017.

15. Learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that no document was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to show that they were descendents of Y.Pentaiah. The temple was not a party to the case filed by the respondents including their name in the P.T Register. Though, Section 76 was omitted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Section 2 (22) Explanation (2) was still in force. The provisions of Protected Tenancy Act would not apply to the Endowments Act. The particulars mentioned in Section 43 Register shall be presumed to be genuine as per the Act. There were entries made in Section 43 register showing that it was an inam land. An inam granted to an archaka is also a religious endowment. Inam lands could not be transferred without prior sanction of Government. Revenue authorities were not having any right to declare the appellants as protected tenants as the land was an inam land. Law of Limitation was also not applicable as per Section 143 of the Act. The Commissioner could make an entry in the Register within 90 days after getting information. The entry was made in 2009. It should be 20 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 considered as evidence in any court of law. The name of the temple was recorded as pattedar in the pahanis. The pahanis were prior to the institution of the suit. The appellants not challenged the entries in the pahanis either before the Tribunal or before this Court. The appellants without having title, were questioning the title of the temple. Though, status quo orders were pending, they were proceeding with construction activities. The appellants were enjoying the property without paying any lease amount. The use and occupation charges were also not paid. The appellants paid the lease amount only till 2006, for which receipts were issued. The words 'Makan Malik' in the receipts would show that the appellants paid the lease, but they were not donations and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants in reply contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not concerned with the schedule property. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 were in possession of the property. The proceedings were initiated against wrong persons. As respondent Nos.5 and 6 purchased the property and were in possession of the same, they filed the implead petition. 38(E) certificate was issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the RDO proceedings were also filed. There was no mention of Sy.Nos.435 and 446 in 43 Register. There was no 21 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 plea that old Sy.Nos.370 and 321 were corresponding to Sy.Nos.435 and

446. No title deed was filed by the respondents along with the application. Without a statutory declaration that the temple had obtained ORC, the application was filed. The only remedy to the respondents was to approach the civil court. No notice was issued at the time of entering names in Section 43 register. No proper enquiry was made by the Assistant Commissioner, the procedure was violated, and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

17. Now the points for consideration in this appeal are:

1. Whether the initiation of proceedings by the respondents under Section 83 of endowments Act for evicting the appellants is legal?

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in passing the order of eviction?

3. To what result?

Point No.1:

18. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the proceedings of eviction initiated against the appellants without there being any title in favour of the Institution was illegal. The respondent authorities ought to have filed an application under Section 87 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments 22 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 Act, 1987 as there was a serious dispute with regard to the title before proving the appellants as encroachers. No title deed of the respondents' institution was filed. The name of Raghava Chary was shown as pattedar, but not the temple in Exs.B1, B9 and B10 which was admitted by the Executive Officer of the applicant temple. The Executive Officer of the applicant temple had conceded in his deposition that the lands were covered under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 and also admitted the fact that the appellants were the protected tenants. The said land was not an endowed land. Sri Penta Reddy @ Pentaiah was recognized as a protected tenant in the proceedings issued by the competent authority under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 and they became final. Once, when the competent authority under the Act recognized a protected tenant, unless the said right was set aside by the appellate authority, the temple could not initiate parallel proceedings by applying Endowments Act which was ex-facie illegal. Once the certificate was issued under Section 38-E (2) of A.P (TA) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands Rules 1973), the same was conclusive evidence of the ownership of the Protected Tenant and could not be defeated by the result of any enquiry 23 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Balreddy Vs.Teegala Narayana Reddy and others (1 supra).

19. The case of the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments representing the respondents, on the other hand, was that the subject lands were granted as inam. They were standing in the name of the Pujari as custodian on behalf of the subject temple long back i.e. in 1301 Fasli through a Munthakab No.101 of 1301 Fasli in the name of Temple Pujari Sri Raghava Chary for maintenance and for performing services of Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and placed his reliance upon Ex.A1 in support of his contention.

20. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is the letter addressed by the office of the RDO, Hyderabad West, dated.31.03.1967 to the Collector Hyderabad District vide letter No.G/9006/1967. It was a document of more than 50 years old. It would disclose that on a complaint petition from ryots of Attapur Village with regard to the illegal possession of lands pertaining to the temple Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple at Attapur Village, the Collector addressed a letter to the RDO vide letter No.969/G2/62-1, dated.19.01.1962 and a detailed enquiry was 24 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 conducted by the RDO and submitted a report. The letter would disclose that records were collected from Tahsil and Land Record Assistant to the extent available and stated that from a copy of the statement of Mutasaddigiri of 1353 F, the lands pertaining to Sy.No.321 to an extent of Ac.1-28 gts and land pertaining to Sy.No.370 to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts of the Attapur Village were granted as inam. The letter also would disclose that there were other inam lands of the temple in Attapur, Premavathipet, Langarhouse, Hyderguda and Budwel, but the same were not extracted here.

21. It was stated that:

"The said lands had been granted as long back as 1301 Fasli through a Munthakab No.101 of 1301 Fasli to the inamdar one Sri Raghava Chary for performing services to Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, situated at Attapur Village. The inamdar died issueless. The question of rendering services to the temple was considered and one Panduranga Chary was appointed as Mutasaddi through Sarfekhas Secretary's letter No.872 dated 01.02.1340 Fasli with the stipulation that the temple will have 2/3rd share and 1/3rd share would be resumed (attached) by the Sarfekhas Government. This Panduranga Chary, who was the first Mutasaddi also died and another Mutasaddi Anantha Chary, S/o.Ramakrishna Chary was appointed vide Sarfekhas Secretary's letter 25 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 No.160 dated 22.02.1353 Fasli. After his death, his son Panduranga Chary had applied for appointment as Mutasaddi. But, it was not accepted on the ground that Mutasaddigiri was not inheritable. However, it remained an established fact that on the basis of the proposal received from the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, the Talukadar Sarfekhas had actually proposed the appointment of Panduranga Chary as Mutasaddi. On learning that the said lands were under the occupation of the Patwari, the Talukdar also directed the Tahsildar to attach the lands but the said proposals were returned by the Sarfekhas Secretary through letter No.922 dated 5-7-1356 Fasli objecting that the Mutasaddigiri was not inheritable. At this stage, the files were resting. Thereafter, Sarfekhas was merged and subsequently no action was taken. Since the Tahsil file was not available, it is not known as to whether the lands were attached or not or what action was taken on the direction given by the Tahsildar.

From the above, it is clear that late Raghava Chary was granted inam lands in the said villages for rendering services to the Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple and after his death Mutasaddi was being appointed from time to time to render services to the temple and to manage the lands. Since no Mutasaddi was appointed for a very long time, the possession of the lands has remained in suspense for want of follow up action by the Temple Mutasaddi as well as the Tahsil office. Hence, the lands remained in the occupation of others. But, the said occupation 26 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 would not, create any proprietary rights for others since the lands are inam lands."

22. It was also further specified in the letter that:

"As regard the occupancy rights of Badam Narayan Reddy and Others it is evident that in the Survey records they have not been registered as pattedars or khatedars of the lands. Therefore, they cannot be the pattedars. The name of Penta Reddy was shown as Protected Tenant against Sy.No.446 to an extent of Ac.2.28 gts and the name of pattedar was shown as Suls Sarfekhas and in the column as to the person to whom lease to be paid, the name of one Panduranga Chary was shown and further mentioned that this record shows that the present occupants at best are only Protected Tenants on the lands attached by the Sarfekhas and also the patta lands of late Raghava Chari and the lease amount was payable to late Pandu Ranga Chari. Since this Pandu Ranga Chari has died long back, there is no person to exercise the rent collection rights in respect of both the attached lands as well as patta lands of late Raghava Chari. Taking advantage of this the tenants Narayan Reddy, Perma Reddy, Penta Reddy have become the sole enjoyers of the income from the lands. However this will hardly not create any proprietary rights for them".

Another point i.e., discernible from the Sethwar is that, Sy.Nos. 10, 11, 15, 16, 494, and 446 are registered as Sarkar Sarfekhas Eksuls (1/3rd) and Sy.Nos. 12 and 20 are registered as patta lands of late Raghava Chari. The former category being inam lands for the service of the Temple 27 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 and latter category being patta lands of Raghava Chari. Since no Mutasaddi was appointed after the death of Pandu Ranga Chari, the lease of these lands could not be collected by anybody. However, the tenants cannot claim proprietary rights on account of the absence of the manager of the Temple. Therefore, the present, occupants Badam Narayan Reddy and others have only tenancy and not proprietary rights on the lands."

23. It was further specified that:

"It is clear that the lands were Sarfekhas inam granted to Anantha Swamy Temple of Attapur Village and managed by one Mutasaddi. The survey records also indicate that the Government has resumed only 1/3rd share of the land revenue. This would imply that remaining 2/3rd share of land Revenue was nothing but inam of Raghava Chari for service of the Temple.

Since no Mutasaddi was appointed the lands were continued to be occupied by Sri Badam Narayan Reddy and Others. Subsequently, he got protected tenancy certificate also. Strictly speaking that the lands being inam of religious institution, they should be deemed as exempt from the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The position of the present occupant is that of an ordinary tenant, therefore lands can be resumed to the Temple".

24. This document gives the history of the lands granted as inam to Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, situated at Attapur Village and the status of the lands. It would disclose that as there was no person 28 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 to exercise the rent collection, the tenants were enjoying the income of the lands without paying any rents and were claiming proprietary rights. It is also made clear by the RDO in his letter that the tenants could not claim proprietary rights on account of absence of the Manager of the temple and it was also specified that the lands being inam of religious institution, they should be deemed exempt from the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the lands can be resumed to the temple.

25. Section 38 Register was also marked as Ex.A2 and it would disclose that the temple was a 500 years old temple belonging to the period of Akkanna and Madanna, the Munthakhab was in the name of Sri Anantha Chary as service inam and Sri Madhava Chary was the Hereditary Archaka. The respondent authorities had also filed the pahanis for the year 1975-76 marked under Ex.A3 showing the name of the temple as Khatedar and the name of Y.Penta Reddy as possessor against Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts and the name of the temple as Khatedar for Sy.No.446 to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts and the names of late Yenugula Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy, Sathya Reddy and Achireddy recorded as possessors. Ex.A4 is the pahani for the year 1984-85, wherein the name of the temple was recorded as pattedar and 29 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 the names of Sathya Reddy and Achireddy recorded as possessors against Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts and the name of the temple as pattedar and the names of Y.Narsimha Reddy, Sathya Reddy and Achireddy recorded as pattedars for Sy.No.446 to an extent of Acs.2-28 gts. Ex.A5 is the pahani for the year 1995-96 showing the name of the temple as pattedar against the Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts and the name of possessor left blank against Sy.No.446 to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts, the name of the temple was recorded as Khatedar and the names of Y.Narsimha Reddy, Sathya Reddy and Venkat Reddy were recorded as possessors. Ex.A6 the pahani for the year 1999-2000 would disclose the name of the temple as Khatedar for Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts and the name of the possessor was left blank against Sy.No.446 to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts also the name of the temple was recorded as Khatedar and the name of possessor was left blank. Thus, all these documents also would show the name of the temple as Khatedar.

26. As seen from the provisions of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, it applies to all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or 30 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 not, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954.

27. Section 2(3) defines charitable endowment. As per Explanation II:

"Any Inam granted to an archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious Institution for the performance of any service or charity in connection with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service-holder or employee, notwithstanding the grant or ryotwari patta to an archaka, service holder or employee under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment"

28. Though, it was contended that Section 76 of the Act pertaining to prohibition of transfer of lands granted for rendering service to a religious or charitable institution or endowment was omitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the above provision under Section 2 (3) Explanation II is still in application. The above provision would disclose that the inam granted to an archaka is also a religious endowment and it cannot be considered as a personal gift to him, notwithstanding the grant or ryotwari patta to him.

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017

29. Section 43 of the Act, provides for Registration of Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments. As per the above provision:

"(1) The trustee or other person in-charge of the management of every charitable or religious institution or endowment shall, in the case of an institution or endowment in existence at the commencement of this Act, within ninety days from such commencement;

and in the case of an institution or endowment found after such commencement, within ninety days of such founding make an application for its registration to the Assistant Commissioner within whose sub- division such institution or endowment is situated:

(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), no application for registration shall be necessary in the case of any institution or endowment which was duly registered and entered in the book of endowments before the commencement of this Act, under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966."

30. Thus, there is no time period fixed for making an application for registration of the charitable endowments, which was duly registered and entered in the book of endowments before the commencement of the Act.

31. Section 43 Register was filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents along with his additional counter. The same would 32 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 disclose that the entries were made in the register with regard to the suit schedule lands pertaining to Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts, Sy.No.446 to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts of Attapur Village and the same would show that it was registered on 02.05.2009.

32. Section 38 register marked under Ex.A2 is pertaining to the year 1969 and it would disclose the old survey numbers as 370 and 321 which were corresponding to the current survey numbers 435 and 446. The letter of the RDO marked under Ex.A1 pertaining to the year 1967 also would disclose that the corresponding revised survey number of 321 as 446, showing the extent of land also to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts.

33. It would show that the entries in Section 43 register were made in the year 2009 and as per Section 46(3) of the Act, until the contrary is established, the entries in the register maintained under Section 43 shall be presumed to be genuine and a certified copy of the entry in the register maintained under Section 43 shall be admissible in evidence in any court and have the same effect as intends as the original register of which it is a copy. Thus, a presumption is also carried with these entries made in Section 43 register and they shall be presumed as genuine unless the contrary is established by the appellants.

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017

34. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents were recognized as protected tenants and eviction proceedings could not be initiated against them. Section 82(5) of the Act specifies that:

"The provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1956 shall not apply to any leases of the lands belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of charitable or religious institutions or endowments as defined under the Endowments Act".

35. As such, the provisions of the Tenancy Act are not applicable to the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. With regard to the proceedings filed by the respondents granting protected tenancy to them or the compromise proceedings in O.S No.43 of 2001 between R1 and R2, and R3 and R4, the same are not binding on the respondent authorities as the respondent authorities are not parties to the said proceedings. The revenue authorities are not having any right to declare the appellants as protected tenants, as the land is an inam land.

Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017

36. As per Section 75 of the Act, any lease or sale of inam lands is void and prior sanction of government is required. As such, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 selling the property in favour of the appellants Nos.3 and 4 i.e. respondent Nos.5 and 6, shall be considered as null and void.

37. As per Section 143 of the Act, the property of charitable or religious institution or endowment would not vest in any person under the law of limitation. As such, no tenant would get title to the temple property by way of adverse possession.

38. As the appellants are claiming title, it is for them to establish their title and to file a suit before the civil court. The documents filed by the respondent authorities are sufficient to initiate the proceedings under Section 83 of the Endowments Act. The applicants had also not challenged the entries in the pahanies marked under Exs.A3 to A7.

39. The respondent authorities had also filed the rental receipts of various years marked under Ex.A10 to A18 from 1976 to 2006. All these documents would disclose that the receipts were issued as Makan Malik i.e. in the capacity of owner, as such, they cannot be considered as donations paid to the temple. The observation of the Tribunal that the 35 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 survey numbers of the lands also were noted on the receipts, as such the receipts could not be assumed as donation amounts, is considered as valid.

40. The appellants were enjoying the property without paying any lease amounts to the respondent temple authorities since 2006 onwards. A tenancy termination notice was issued by the respondent authorities marked under Ex.A9 dated 30.10.2006. No reply was given by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on receipt of termination notice. As such, this court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on these aspects.

41. Point No.2:

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal directing the appellants to evict from O.A. schedule lands and to deliver the vacant physical possession within two (02) months from the date of this order and in granting police aid to the temple authorities to obtain the possession of the schedule lands.

42. Point No.3:

In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the orders of the Tribunal in O.A No.368 of 2010 (Old O.A 36 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.594 of 2017 No.119 of 2007) dated 06.06.2017 and the appellants are directed to deliver the vacant physical possession of the schedule lands to the respondent temple authorities within two (02) months from the date of this order and if the appellants failed to comply with the order, the respondent authorities are at liberty to remove the appellants from the possession of the schedule lands with the help of police aid in executing the order. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date:26.09.2024 dsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court