Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Sarada Peetham Regd.Trust, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 May, 2025
APHC010232662025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11598/2025
Between:
Sri Sarada Peetham (regd.trust), ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2. A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following: INTERIM ORDER Impugning the proceedings issued by the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent vide Roc.No.TTD-81022(31)/22/2023-Panchayat-Tml, dated 17.04.2025, terminating the lease and declaring the petitioner as an encroacher and directing the petitioner to hand over possession etc., the above writ petition is filed. Along with the writ petition, an interlocutory application has been filed seeking suspension of the proceedings.Page 2 of 11
2. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
3. The TTD Board considered the request of the petitioner and allotted a vacant site in Plot No.6, admeasuring 5000 square feet near Gogarbham Dam Area in Tirumala, for the construction of Mutt, subject to terms and conditions vide Board Resolution No.432, dated 24.10.2005. Accordingly, a lease deed dated 25.03.2007 was executed between the lessee i.e. Sri Sarada Peetham and the lessor i.e. the Executive Officer, Tirumala Hills Area, Tirumala, for a period of 30 years with effect from 26.02.2006 to 27.02.2036. The allotment of land to the Mutt was ratified and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1641, dated 07.11.2006. The Mutt encroached land admeasuring 4817 square feet, and the said encroachment was regularised by the Board in its Resolution No.249, dated 28.12.2019, and the same was ratified by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 04.06.2020.
4. The Engineering Department of TTD noticed deviations qua construction from the approved plan. The Mutt authorities furnished the explanation that, due to Vaastu considerations, deviations from the approved plan have occurred. The issue was placed before the TTD Board, and the Board in its resolution No.443, dated 26.12.2023 resolved to regularise the deviations by imposing an amount of Rs.25,99,768.60p as penal charges and sent the proposals to the Government for ratification. The petitioner paid penal charges, including GST totalling Rs.30,68,000/- on 30.12.2023.
Page 3 of 115. The Government rejected resolution No.443, dated 26.12.2023, passed by the TTD Board, by Memo No./Endts.III/2400056/344/2024, dated 24.10.2024. Thereafter, a show cause notice vide Roc.No.TTD- 81022(31)/22/2023-PANCHAYAT-TML, dated 20.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner to submit an explanation within 7 days as to why the lease shall not be cancelled. In the show-cause notice, deviations and violations of the approved plan were specifically mentioned.
6. Assailing the show cause notice and the Government Memo dated 24.10.2024, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30857 of 2024. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking suspension of the Memo dated 24.10.2024 issued by the Government. An interim order was passed on 27.12.2024, suspending the Memo dated 24.10.2024, till 03.01.2025. Time to submit the explanation to the show cause notice dated 24.10.2024, was extended till 03.01.2025.
7. By an order dated 17.02.2025, a coordinate bench of this Court directed the respondents to proceed further as per the show cause notice, in accordance with law, while extending the interim order granted on 27.12.2024.
8. The petitioner filed an intra-court appeal W.A.No.146 of 2025. The said appeal was dismissed on 26.03.2025. Before the Division Bench, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-appellant would submit that the explanation to the show cause notice had already been filed before the concerned authority. Having noted the same, the Division Bench observed that the TTD cannot be prevented from issuing a show cause notice or proceeding, per, the law to take action regarding the violations committed by the petitioner-appellant vis-à-vis approved plans. Thereafter, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition were passed.
Page 4 of 119. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel would contend that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the explanation dated 01.01.2025 (Ex.P13) submitted by the petitioner. He would also submit that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the Memo No./Endts.III/2400056/344/2024, dated 24.10.2024. He would submit that the Gram Panchayat is the competent authority in respect of deviations qua the constructions, and the 2nd respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to deal with the deviations. He would also submit that deviations regarding constructions were ratified by the Board in its resolution No.443, dated 26.12.2023, and the petitioner paid the penal charges. He would submit that since W.P.No.30857 of 2024 is pending, the 2nd respondent should not have issued the proceedings impugned.
10. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, would submit that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered. He would point out that, in the show cause notice, details were mentioned regarding the deviations and the petitioner did not advert to the said violations or submit any explanation in that regard in the reply. He would also submit that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed, given the observation in W.A.No.146 of 2025.
11. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner entitled to a grant of an interim order as prayed for?
12. It is a well-settled law that for the grant of an interim order, the petitioner has to satisfy a prima facie case, a balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
Page 5 of 1113. A show cause notice (Ex.P3) was issued to the petitioner, pointing out violations of clauses in the lease deed and deviations regarding constructions from that of the approved plan. The petitioner filed W.P.No.30857 of 2024, challenging the Memo dated 24.10.2024 (Ex.P2) and the show cause notice dated 20.12.2024 issued by the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent. An interim order was granted vide Ex.P12 suspending the Memo dated 24.10.2024 issued by the 1st respondent till 03.01.2025. The Court extended the time to submit the explanation till 03.01.2025 to the show cause notice.
14. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a reply dated 01.01.2025 (Ex.P13) through his advocate and the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 08.01.2025. In the reply, it was contended that various proceedings, referred to in the show cause notice, however, were not annexed to the show cause notice. The petitioner could not secure the copies shown at reference Nos 1 to 4 & 6 and requested to supply the said documents. In the reply, it was further stated about the regularisation of the constructions by the Board in its resolution dated 26.12.2023. It was specifically mentioned about the constructions made by the other lessees in deviations from approved plans, and pleaded discrimination. In the last paragraph of the reply, it was stated as follows:
"Various allegations made in the show cause notice are not correct and you are put to strict proof of the same. After receiving copies of the proceedings referred in your show cause Notice, my client would submit detailed explanation pointing out various omissions and commissions in the show cause notice and as to how it is vitiated. As long as matter is under subjudice you are requested not to proceed further pending adjudication of the list before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P."Page 6 of 11
15. It is pertinent to mention here that W.P.No.30857 of 2024 was listed on 17.02.2025 before the coordinate Bench of this Court, and the docket order dated 17.02.2025, which is relevant, is extracted below:
"Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner requested for some documents from the Respondents for submission of explanation, but so far not provided, hence no explanation was submitted.
Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent submits that even though the Court specifically directed the Petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 03.01.2025, so far no explanation was submitted to proceed further in terms of show cause notice.
Therefore, the Respondents are allowed to proceed further as per show cause notice in accordance with law."
16. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A.No.146 of 2025. As noted supra, the writ appeal was dismissed on 26.03.2025. Paragraph 3 of the order reads thus:
"3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant states that an explanation to the Show Cause Notice has since been filed before the concerned authority."
17. Having noted the same, the Division Bench observed that the TTD cannot be prevented from issuing the show cause notice or proceeding in accordance with law to take action in regard to the violations committed by the petitioner-appellant with regard to the approved plans.
18. Thus, the explanation submitted by the petitioner (Ex.P13) is the explanation to the show cause notice. Thus, in all probability, this Court must conclude that Ex.P13 is the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice (Ex.P3). In the show cause notice, it was specifically mentioned about the Conditions Nos.4, 5, 18 and 24 of the Page 7 of 11 lease deed; encroachment made by the Mutt; regularization of the same and ratification by the Government; Deviations in constructions, resolution by the Board regularizing deviations; the payment made by the petitioner and the Memo rejecting the proposals for ratification by the TTD.
19. After the Memo dated 24.10.2024 issued by the Government, the Executive Officer instructed the officials from the TTD Engineering, Panchayat & Revenue, Fire Wing etc., to submit a report on violations vis-à-vis constructions made by the petitioner. It seems the team of officials inspected and submitted the report, and the deviations are mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the show cause notice. The specific deviations regarding constructions were mentioned in Paragraph 7.
20. Nothing was adverted to in the explanation (Ex.P13) regarding specific violations, except for contending that violations were regularised by the Board in its resolution dated 26.12.2023 and making payment. Of course, it was specifically stated in the explanation about the deviations said to have been made by the different lessees.
21. In the proceeding impugned, 13 references were noted. However, the authorities failed to mention the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In the subject matter, it was mentioned that no satisfactory explanation was received; writ petition and writ appeal filed by the Mutt were disposed of.
22. However, in an unnumbered first paragraph on Page No.7 of the proceedings impugned, it was noted that the reply submitted by the petitioner is neither convincing nor satisfying, as the petitioner did not Page 8 of 11 submit any explanation regarding violations of the lease deed conditions and deviations from the original plans, approved by the TTD.
23. There is no dispute that a lease was entered into for 30 years and the same was ratified by the Board and further approved by the Government. It is also an undisputed fact that constructions were made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and those deviations were regularised by the TTD Board vide resolution No.443, dated 26.12.2023, however, the Government rejected the said resolution by Memo dated 24.10.2024.
24. Except for mentioning that the reply is neither convincing nor satisfying, the 2nd respondent failed to advert to the specific averment made by the petitioner that the violations or deviations allegedly made by other lessees and the alleged discrimination against the petitioner. Nothing was also discussed regarding the non-supply of relevant documents.
25. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been reiterating that reasons are the heart and soul of the order passed by the administrative authority. The reasons assigned would bespeak the application of mind by the authority.
26. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, held as follows:
"It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in 1 1990 (4) SCC 594 Page 9 of 11 support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons"....
27. As pointed out supra, in the proceedings impugned, at unnumbered page 7, except for stating that the explanation is satisfactory, the authority failed to consider the aspects pleaded in the reply and assign proper reasons. The authority considering the explanation should not be oblivious of the fact that it is considering an explanation to a show cause notice concerning the cancellation of a lease for 30 years.
28. In the proceedings impugned, it was mentioned that the lease was terminated with effect from 04.01.2025 i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the termination notice, and hence, the petitioner was declared as an encroacher. Prima facie, this Court believes that after the show cause notice (Ex.P3), the explanation submitted is Ex.P13, and thereafter the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) were issued. Thus, termination of the lease with effect from 04.01.2025 would demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority to the factual situation. This constitutes a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner.
29. Before passing an order of this nature, the authority should adhere to the principles of Natural Justice by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is conspicuously absent in the case at hand. If the order is allowed to continue, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.
30. De Smith, in his Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1980), at page 161, observed, "Where a statute authorises interference with properties or other rights and is silent on the question of hearing, the Page 10 of 11 courts would apply rule of universal application and founded on plainest principles of natural justice."
31. In A.K.Kraipak Vs. Union of India2, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
"The rules of natural justice operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. These principles thus supplement the law of the land."
32. In C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India and others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"Even though It was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, namely, the compulsory purchase of the property."
33. Since the petitioner satisfied a prima facie case and irreparable loss, the proceedings impugned vide Roc.No.TTD-81022(31)/22/2023- Panchayat-Tml, dated 17.04.2025 (Ex.P1) are hereby suspended.
34. However, this order will not preclude the 2nd respondent from giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner (Ex.P13) objectively and passing a fresh order duly assigning reasons.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 2 AIR 1970 SC 150 3 (1993) 1 SCC 78 Page 11 of 11 NOTE:
With the great dissatisfaction, this Court is constrained to observe that despite the Writ Proceedings Rules, of late, a practice has been developed that the documents annexed to the writ petition as material papers, the learned counsel have not been following a seriatim, date- wise or event-wise, which will help both the counsel and the Court. The said practice is highly deprecated. This Court, while not pointing out any adversarial remarks, was constrained from making such a comment because Ex.P3 is the show cause notice, and Ex.P13 is the explanation. Of course, this observation has no bearing on the decision rendered.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.11598 of 2025 List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2025.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI th 6 May, 2025 PVD