Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mustooru Venkataramana vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 February, 2025
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.29112 of 2012
Between:
#Mustooru Venkataramana and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 21.02.2025
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.29112 of 2012
% 21.02.2025
# Between:
#Mustooru Venkataramana and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Sita Ram
! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010637042012
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: 29112/2012
Between:
Mustooru Venkataramana and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K SITA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)
3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
4. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"......to issue a Writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in including the land in Sy No 550 in an extent of Ac 0 06 cents of Tadipatri Village, Ananatpur district, in the list properties belonging to the Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments furnished to the 4th respondent in his proceedings Lr in Rc No NN1/34576/07 dated 29.12.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to 4 the civil court decrees and consequently set aside the same and direct the 4th respondent to register the document in respect of land in Sy No 550 in an extent of Ac 0 06 cents of Tadipatri Village,Ananatpur district, as and when the same is presented and pass......"
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner had purchased an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Sy. No 550 of Tadipatri village, with specific boundaries, from the 2ndpetitioner and his two brothers by names Chinna venkataramana and Venkata sivudu, under a registered sale deed dated No.3405/1995 dated 16.12.1995. Now the 2nd petitioner along with another person want to purchase back the same. When the petitionerswent to the 4th respondent's office for ascertaining the present market value and the stamp duty to be paid for registering the same he informed the petitioners that he cannot process the document for registration in respect of above mentioned property as the same is included by the 2nd respondent in the list furnished by him under Sec.22-A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, the under the impugned proceedings.
Originally a vacant site measuring Ac.0.06 cents situated in 2nd ward, Tadipatri Municipal Area belonged to one Kuntumalla Lakshmi narashaih who sold the same in favour of Obannapeta Chenna venkataiah, under a registered sale deed No. 1326/1946 dated 31-5-1946. The said Chenna Venktaiah in turn sold the said site to Smt. Patti Venkata Subbamma, w/o P Venkata Swamy under a regd. sale deed No. 2133/1951 dated 22-8-1951. Meanwhile Avadhut Thimma Ramayya Mutt, represented by its disciples Chenna Rangappa and 37others filed O.S. No. 54 of 1962 for declaration of the title and for recovery of possession of the said vacant land claiming that 5 same along with some other vacant sites belong to Avadhut Thimma Ramayya Mutta. Smt. Patti Venkata Subbamma, through whom petitioners' vendor purchased, is the 9th defendant in the suit. The suit was dismissed by the District Munisif, Anantapur by judgment and decree dated 29-1-1964. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S. NO. 63 of 1965 before the Additional District Judge, Anantapur and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 2-3-1966. No further appeal was filed by the said plaintiff and the decree became final. Subsequently in the year 1974 the said Mutt was taken over by the Government along with its properties. It is stated that the Government being successor in interest is bound by the decrees suffered by the Mutt.
While the matter stood thus, the 2nd petitioner along with his two brothers by names Dharmavaram Chinna Venkataraman and Dharmavarm Venkata Sivudu purchased the said site from Smt. Patti Venkta Subbamma under a registered document No. 1938/1995 dated 1-7-1995. The 1st petitioner purchased the same property from 2 nd petitioner and his brothers under a registered document No.3405/1995 dated 16-12-1995. Since then the 1st petitioner is in possession of the said property. Now the 1 st petitioner wants to sell the said site and the 2nd petitioner is willing to purchase the same along with another person. However the 4th respondent is not registering the said sale citing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Lr.in.Rc.No.NN1/ 34576/07 dated 29-12-2008 under which he has included the land of the petitioner in list furnished to him under Sec.22-A(1) (c) of the Registration Act. 6 It is stated that the action of the 2nd respondent in including the petitioner's plot in Sy. N O. 550 in an extent of Ac.0.06 cents which has got specific boundaries is illegal,arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, it is a case where the petitioners and the Mutt are claiming rights over the subject landed property of this case and hence, the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach A.P. Endowments Tribunal by invoke Sec.87 of the Act, 30/87 but not by filing present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since question of fact and law is involved, which can be decided only through regular enquiry, but not by summary procedure. It is well settled law that a writ petition is not maintainable, when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the Statute. In Endowments Act, a Tribunal is constituted U/Sec.162 of the Act for the determination of any dispute, question or the matter relating to a Charitable Institution, Dharmadayam, Religious Charity, Religious Endowments, Religious Institution or any Institution as defined in the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. The 5th respondent has also filed counter affidavit in the present writ petition. While denying the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that section 75 of Endowments Act of 30/1987 speaks as follows:
"any lease and any gift, sale exchange or mortgage of an inam land granted for the support or maintenance charitable or religious institutions or endowments are for the performance of a religious or public charity or service shall be null and void and unless any such transactions not giving a gift is effected with the prior sanction of the government."7
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners herein stating that they got registration under sale of the land in Sy.No. 550-C extent Ac. 0-06 cts out of Ac 2-82 cts in favour of them under registered sale document No. 1938/1995 dt: 01-07-1995 and another registered sale document No. 3405/1995 dt: 16-12-1995 is null and void as per above section of Endowments Act. It is further stated that number of cases are coming to the notice of the Endowments Authorities that some illegal transactions are going on over the Endowments lands, the Department think to avert the same for by listing Endowments lands in Andhra Pradesh state under Section 22 (A) (1) (C) of the Registration Act and the Commissioner sent such lists to concerned Sub-registrar in the State requesting them not to entertain any sale transactions over the lands in the list. It is a fact that the land in Sy.No.550-C extent Ac.2-82 cts of Tadipatri village, Ananthapuramu District was also listed in said prohibitory list and sent to Sub- Registrar, Tadipatri or otherwise the entire land given to Mutt may disappear and the Mutt may face financial problems to meet its expenditure for day to day administration. It is also stated that the petitioners herein has requested the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapuramu while submitting all records to delete his land in Sy.No. 550-C Extent Ac. 0-06 cts out of Ac. 2-82 cts of Tadipatri Polam, a detailed report was submitted to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapuramu in letter Rc.No. A4/5473/2009 Adm dt: 23-10-2010. Accordingly, the Commissioner vide Memo in Rc.No. 8 N1/54745/2011 dated 04-05-2012 has instructed the Assistant Commissioner to advice the applicant (Petitioner herein) to approach the competent forum to resolve the matter.
5. Heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, argued that, the 1st petitioner wants to sell the subject site and the 2nd petitioner is willing to purchase the same along with another person. However, the 4 th respondent is not registering the said site citing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.2008 under which he has included the land of the 1st petitioner in list furnished to him under Section 22-A(1)(c ) of the Registration Act. So, the action of the 2nd respondent in including the 1st petitioner's plot in Sy.No.550 in an extent of Ac 0.06 cents which has got specific boundaries is highly illegal and arbitrary. He further argued that the 1 st petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting him to issue necessary No Objection Certificate and to inform the 4th respondent intimating him that the 1st petitioner's plot with specific boundaries is not the land of the Endowments Department. He further submits that the 3rd respondent after obtaining orders from the 2nd respondent directed the petitioners to approach competent forum to resolve the matter. After long period, when the respondents suffered decree, the petitioners cannot be relegated to file a civil Suit. In view of the 9 above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits, argued that once the claim is made by the religious institution, the only forum which can adjudicate upon disputes, is the Endowments Tribunal and therefore learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners have to avail the alternate remedy available under Section 87 of Endowments Act 30/87 not by way of filing this writ petition and hence opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.
8. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the contention of the petitioners that they got registration under sale of the land in Sy No.550-C to an extent of Ac 0.06 cents out of Ac 2.82 cents in favour of them under a registered sale deed document No.1938/1995 dated 01.07.1995 is null and void. He further submits that, it is a fact that, the land in Sy No.550-C extent of Ac 2.82 cents of Tadipatri Vilalge, Anantapuramu District was also listed in the prohibitory list and sent to Sub Registrar, Tadipatri or otherwise the entire land given to Mutt may disappear and the Mutt may face financial problems to meet its expenditure for day to day administration. He further submits that the Commissioner vide Memo dated 4.5.2012 has instructed the Assistant Commissioner to advise the applicants to approach 10 the competent forum to resolve the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Perused the material on record.
10. The main crux of the case is that the registration authority has not registering the land, which they claimed as belonging to them as owners.
11. Originally the vacant site admeasuring in Ac 0.06 cents situated in 2nd Ward, Tadipatri Municipal area belonged to one Kuntumalla Lakshmi Narasiah who sold the same in favour of Obnanapet Chinna Venkataiah under a registered sale deed No.1326/1946 dated 31.5.1946. The said Ch.Venkataiah in turn sold the site to Smt. Patti Venkata Subbamma under a registered sale deed No.2133/1951, dated 22.8.1951 . Meanwhile Avadhut Thimma Ramayya Mutt rep. by its disciples Chenna Rangappa and 37 others filed O.S.No.54 of 1962 before the trial Court for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the said vacant land claiming that same along with some other vacant sites belong to Avadhut Thimma Ramayya Mutt. The said suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal in AS No.63 of 1965 was filed before Additional District Judge, Anantapur and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 2.3.1966. Subsequently in the year 1974 the said Mutt was taken over by the Government along with its properties.
12. Now, in the present case, the 2nd petitioner along with his two brothers purchased the said site from Smt Patti Venakta Subbamma vide regd. Document No.1938/1995 dated 1.7.1995. Thereafter, the 1 st petitioner 11 has purchased the same from 2 nd petitioner and his brothers under a regd. Document No.3405/1995 dated 16.12.1995. Since then the 1 st petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Now, the 1 st petitioner wants to sell the same site and the 2nd petitioner is willing to purchase same with another person. But the 4th respondent is not registering the said sale citing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 29.2.2008 under which he has included the land of the 1st petitioner in the list furnished to him under Section 22(A)(1)(c ) of the Registration Act.
13. Section 22-A of the Registration Act and in particular, clause (c) thereof envisages a prohibition on registering documents relating to inter alia agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding ten (10) years in respect of immovable property owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, "the Endowments Act") or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so.
14. It is the contention of the petitioners that the entire process of bringing the property in question on the prohibited list was arbitrary inasmuch as no opportunity of heard was granted to the petitioners before such an inclusion.
15. A learned Division Bench of the unified Hon'ble High Court rendered a Judgment while dealing with the Section 22(A) (1) (C) of 12 Registration Act, 1908 in W.A.No.500 of 2012 dated 09-10-2012, wherein it was held as follows:
"However, we have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also examined the material placed before us. After considering Section 87 of the Act, in our opinion, the remedy is before the said authority as specifically stated by His Lordship. Accordingly, we do not intend to interfere with the said order, since the said order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and, on the contrary, we affirm the said order passed by His Lordship, since we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to apply before the said authority and substantiate their case in the matter in question."
16. In another judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court rendered a Judgment in W.P. (PIL) No.70 of 2022 while dealing with Section 22(A)(1) (C) of Registration Act, 1908 and Section 43 of Act, 30 of 1987 as follows:
"8. However, on a plain reading of the provisions contained in Sections 92 and 93 of the Act of 1987, it is evident that such power is available to the Commissioner only when no suit, appeal or application or reference to a Court is provided under the said Act. Once the entry in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act of 1987 is open for correction in proceedings under Section 45 read with Section 87 of the Act of 1987, the jurisdiction under Sections 92 and 93 of the Act of 1987 is not available to the Commissioner.
9. In view of this legal position and since admittedly, the remedy available to the aggrieved party for deletion of an entry in the register of properties maintained under Section 43 of the Act of 1987 prohibited for registration u9. nder Section 22A(1) (c) of the Act of 1908, is to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 read with Section 87 of the Act of 1987, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned communication/ order cannot be sustained.
10. Accordingly, the impugned communication/order dated 09.01.2022 is set aside, leaving it open to respondent No.8 to avail the appropriate remedy as provided under law.
11. With the above, this writ petition (public interest litigation) stands disposed of."
17. It is also to be noted from the judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.888 of 2022 & Batch 23-09-2023 while dealing with Section 22(A) (1) (C) of Registration Act, 1908 and Section 43 of Act, 30 of 1987, as follows:
"11. In the present case, it is not denied that the properties in question, which the petitioners claimed as owners, have since been brought on the register maintained in terms of 13 Section 43 of the have been enjoying the property in question as owners with effect from 1990 onwards and the ownership was being asserted on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by their erstwhile vendors. However, we are of the opinion that once the property has been registered and brought on the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, the writ court could not have directed the registration of the property in the name of the petitioners in the light of the existence of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is in that context that the writ Court proceeded to hold that disputed questions of fact arise in the writ petitions, which could only be gone into before the civil Court.
12. We are, however, of the opinion that another remedy, which would be available to the appellants in this case, would be to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Endowments Act. As per Section 87(c) of the Endowments Act, the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to determine whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment. In the light of the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners, the writ court had rightly refused the relief which the petitioners were seeking. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present appeals, which are accordingly dismissed."
18. Section 87 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short 'the Endowments Act"), which reproduced hereunder:
87. [ Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters. [Substituted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] (1)The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question.
(a)whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment;
(b)whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;
(c)whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment;
(d)whether any property is a specific endowment;
(e)whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor, 'emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter;
(f)whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or
(g)where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any 14 property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;
(h)whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.
(2)The Endowments Tribunal may, pending its decision under subsection (1), pass such order as it deems fit for the administration of the property or custody of the money belonging to the institution or endowment. (3)The Endowments Tribunal may while recording its decision under subsection (1) and pending implementation of such decision, pass such interim order as it may deem fit for safeguarding the interest of the institution or endowment and for preventing damage to or loss or misappropriation or criminal breach of trust in respect of the properties or moneys belonging to or in the possession of the institution or endowment.
(4)The presumption in respect of matters covered by Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be.
(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub sections the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.]
19. Section 88 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 the Right of appeal against the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87. [Substituted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] "Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 and Section 119 may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the decision prefer an appeal to the High Court."
20. As per Section 87 and 88 of the 'Endowments Act', it is very clear that the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question. Such exercise could not be 15 done in the instant case. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is an encroacher earlier in respect of the land in Sy.No.189 to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents and he himself willing to pay damages and lease permission request, other remaining extent in Sy.No.189 was under encroachments and filed O.As before the Tribunal, which are pending. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
21. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereunder:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open;
and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on 16 the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32."
22. In the instant case, the petitioner has not preferred any Appeal before the learned Tribunal in respect of subject land, so far and further the petitioner is now questioning the action of the respondents in placing the subject land in prohibited property list maintained under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, which is not maintainable by invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as contended by learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
23. Section 83 of the Endowments Act deals with eviction of encroachment, which reproduced hereunder:
"83. Encroachment of land, building, or any property belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroacher:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the encroachment of land, building, or any property of a charitable or religious institution or endowment is prohibited.
(2) The Executive Officer of the Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment or the Assistant Commissioner or any authority higher in rank thereof, shall, by notice, require the encroacher to remove the encroachment as hereinafter provided:
Provided that the encroacher shall be entitled to submit reply/ explanation to such notice within one week from the date of receipt of such notice, which shall be duly considered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed:-
(a) Either withdrawing the notice issued and dropping further proceedings; or
(b) Affirming the notice and duly stipulating the time within which such encroachment shall be removed.
(3) If the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment within such stipulated period, the authority who issued the notice shall remove the encroachment with police assistance, if necessary and recover the cost of removal from the encroacher.17
(4) For the purpose of securing police assistance, the authority concerned shall approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police/ Commissioner of Police who shall thereupon provide such police assistance as is deemed necessary for the removal of encroachment.
(5) Any act of encroachment including the attempt to encroach shall be a cognizable offence, non-bailable and triable as a warrant case, in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to eight years and with fine which may extend to Rupees one lakh.
..............."
24. And also 84 of the Endowments Act provides mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the Endowments Tribunal. [Substituted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] (1)Where within the period specified in the order under sub-section (4) of Section 83, the encroacher has not removed the encroachment and has not vacated the land, building or space, the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the sub-division may remove the encroachment and obtain possession of the land, building or space, encroached upon, taking such police assistance as may be necessary. Any Police Officer whose help is required for this purpose shall be required to render the necessary help to the Assistant Commissioner.
(2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by any order of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 from preferring an appeal before the High Court to establish that the Charitable and religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space:
Provided that no appeal shall be preferred after expiry of ninety days from the date of receipt of the order under sub-section (4) of Section 83:
Provided further that no such appeal shall be preferred by a person who is let in to the possession of land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee of Institution or Endowment.]
25. As seen from the material available on record and also considering the submissions of both the counsel, it appears that there is a serious dispute involved in between the petitioner and 4th respondent with regard to title over the subject land. The petitioner has not chosen to approach Endowments 18 Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, where similar matters are being pending therein. Since the 4th respondent is claiming the subject land as their land, the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Endowments Tribunal as per the 'Endowments Act'. An appeal lies against the Award passed by the 'Endowments Tribunal' under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in the instant case is not comes under purview of under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
26. In view of the procedure as contemplated under 'Endowments Act' cited supra, question of directing the respondents to release the subject property from the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 does not arise at this juncture.
27. Therefore, it is suffice, to issue a direction to the petitioner to file an Original Application as well as Interlocutory Applications before the learned Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt of such applications, the learned Endowments Tribunal is directed to protect the interest of the petitioner till disposal of Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners in O.A. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the subject land.
28. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
19
29. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -02-2025
Gvl
20
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No:29112 of 2012
Date : 21.02.2025
Gvl