Telangana High Court
Sri. Gottiparthy Aravind vs The Assistant Commissioner on 20 August, 2024
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 680 of 2019 & 389 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT:
Parties in both the appeals are one and the same and they raise common issue. Therefore, with their consent, they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 15.03.2019, passed in O.A.No.125 of 2010 (Old O.A.No.3/2003) by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.
3. The application vide O.A.No.125 of 2010 was filed by the appellants in C.M.A.No.680 of 2019 to declare the land covered by Sy.No.47 having the extent of Ac.32.31 guntas situated at Ammapally village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District not as endowed property of 2nd respondent temple and it is the private and personal property of applicants and to delete the relevant entry in the Section 38 Registrar of the temple and to set aside the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide R.C.No.C/985/2002, dated 03.04.2002.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
2
5. The parties herein are referred as 'applicants' and 'respondents' as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are absolute owners and pattedars of the O.A. schedule land to an extent of Ac.32.31 guntas in Sy.No.47 situated at Ammapally Village, Shamshabad Mandal. Out of the above stated Ac.32.31 guntas of land, they purchased an extent of Ac.08.20 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000 and an extent of Ac.6.00 under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000 from M/S. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders and Ac.10.11 guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2000 from M/s.Swarnandhra Developers and an extent of Ac.08.00 of land under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2001 from one Sathi Raju. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the O.A schedule land.
7. The OA schedule land originally belonged to one Mr.Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji and he sold it out to Mr.Mirza Anwar Ali Baig in the year 1957. He in turn sold the same to Mr.Deva Priyam B.Kurut under a registered sale deed dated 3 23.04.1976. Mr.Deva Priyam B.Kurut sold the same to Satpal Singh and Chanchal Devi on 30.04.1984. These two purchasers subsequently sold away the OA schedule land to different persons, under different sale deeds with different extents. The said Satpal Singh and Chanchal Devi sold an extent of Ac.08.00 of land to Smt.K.Suguna Devi, W/o. K.S.N.Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.1997 and that Suguna Devi in turn sold that Ac.08.00 of land under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000 to one Sathi Raju and Sathi Raju sold the land to applicants. The said Satpal Singh and Chanchal Devi sold away an extent of Ac.08.20 guntas of land under a registered sale deed, dated 24.09.1997 to M/s.Keerthi Warehousers and Traders and on the same day they sold an extent of Ac.16.11 guntas of land to the said M/s. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders under another sale deed. The said M/s. Keerthi warehousers and Traders in turn sold an extent of Ac.06.00 of land and an extent of Ac.08.20 guntas of land to applicants under two (02) different sale deeds on 14.09.2000. Further, the said M/s. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders have sold an extent of Ac.10.11 guntas of land to M/s.Swarnandhra Developers and that M/s.Swarnandhra 4 Developers sold away that Ac.10.11 guntas of land to them under a registered sale deed. That, in the above said manner, they became owners of the OA schedule land, they do real estate business and they sold away almost half of the OA schedule land to various persons by registering the plots in their names.
8. On 03.04.2002, respondent No.1 vide Rc.No.C/985/2002, addressed to respondent No.3 that the land covered by Sy.no.47 along with the lands covered by Sy.Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 20 to 34, 36 to 43, 35 to 47 are the lands of respondent No.2 temple and they were leased out to various persons for a nominal rent. In that proceeding, a request was made not to entertain or register any sale transaction pertaining to those lands. On the strength of those proceedings, respondent Nos.3 and 4 started refusing to register the sale transactions pertaining to Sy.No.47 of Ammapally Village. Applicants stated that respondent No.1 has no right to address such proceedings to respondent No.3 even if the land belongs to the endowment. The procedure contemplated in the Registration Act is that the State Government either suo-moto or on receipt of the proposals of District Collector shall notify the registration of 5 certain properties which are to be prohibited. In this case, the State Government has not issued any such notification and thus the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 dated 03.04.2002 are not tenable and are liable to be set aside.
9. Respondent No.1 initially submitted para-wise remarks and later he filed a counter affidavit and he stated that he addressed to the District Registrar at Moosapet and Sub- Registrar at Shamshabad with a request, not to entertain any sale transaction in respect of the landed properties covered by Sy.Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 20 to 34, 35 to 43, 45 to 47 of Ammapally Village admeasuring Ac.222.07 gts. He constrained to address the said authorities basing on the letter, dated 28.03.2002 of person-in-management of the temple. The registration particulars entered in the Section 38 register of the temple reveals that, since the year 1971 to an extent of Ac.222.07 gts., of dry land situated at Ammapally & Narkuda Villages as the land of the temple. According to Sethwar of 1334 Fasli, the total extent of the land of the temple was Ac.247.00. The then Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in his order, dated 03.02.1968 passed in the OA No.1/1967 held that, the lands are Chowtha Inam lands and the temple alone is 6 entitled for a Ryothwari Patta. During the year 1975, on the application made by Smt.Vidyullatha Devi, the Co-share holder of Smt.Radha Lakshmi Bai, an enquiry was held in detail and after the perusal of vital documents, the then Revenue Division Officer (WEST DIVISION) vide proceedings No.G/8025/75, dated 18.12.1975 resumed the lands covered by various survey numbers to the extent of Ac.222.07 gts., and he directed the Tahsildar to take possession and manage the lands. It was also observed in that order that, necessary orders would be passed for granting of Ryothwari Patta in the name of the temple. Respondents 1 & 2 have got every right over the land covered by Sy.No.47 and unless and until any, competent authority says that, the land covered by the said survey number does not belongs to the temple and the entry made in Section 38 Register is to be deleted, till then the entries in the register holds good.
10. As per the entries found in Book of Endowment and in the section 38 register, there is an entry relating to Sy.No.47 of Ammapally Village and that entry was there since the year 1971 and till date no one questioned that entry. The land covered by Sy.No.47 having the extent of Ac.32.31 gts is Inam land of the temple and it cannot be alienated and if anyone alienates, then 7 it amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, 30/87. The request of the petitioners for deletion and annulling of the entries in the Book of Endowments after the lapse of 32 years is untenable in the eyes of law and the registration made in the year 1971 in the Book of Endowments cannot be doubted. The registration has become absolute on account of afflux of time. The Sethwar issued in the year 1334 Fasli discloses that, the Ammapally Village as Agraharam Village and the Deshmukhs were recorded as cultivator in the cultivator column and that cultivator was the custodian of the temple property. The ownership of Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji cannot be entertained in the absence of any valid document. According to the applicants that, the original source of alienation of the OA schedule property said to have been made in the year 1957 to one Mirza Anwar Ali Baig and this saying of the applicants cannot be taken into account without any documentary proof. The Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent temple submitted a report wherein, he informed about the alienations and basing on that report, a letter was addressed to the Sub-Registrar at Moosapet and at Shamshabad to stop further registrations to protect the interest 8 of the temple, accordingly, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 acted upon and they stopped further registrations. The provision of the Act, 30/87 gives power to the Asst. Commissioner of Endowments to protect the temple land and to stop the illegal alienations and encroachments. The authority has got no jurisdiction for giving a direction of annulment of entries in the Section 38 register and for setting aside the orders, dated 30.04.2002 and the way out is to file a revision under section 92 of the Act before the appropriate forum.
11. Respondent No.2 in his counter stated that the temple is an ancient temple and it was constructed about 300 years back. During the Nizam period, the Ammapally Village was a Jagir Village and it was the practice of the Jagirdar of the Village to collect the land revenue of the lands with the help of Patel or Patwari of the Village. The Hyderabad Government endowed Ac.247.00 of land in various survey numbers including the OA schedule property and the same is evident from the contents of Sethwar of 1334 Fasli. The endowed lands admeasuring Ac.247.00 were Chowtha Inam lands of the temple and they were under the management of one Venkatramireddy, who was the Patwari of the Village. three 9 daughters as his share holders. The Munthakab of succession of Chowtha Inam was ordered by Nizam-E-Atiyat, dated 07.03.1357 Fasli by creating Shikmi in favour of Smt. Radha Lakshmi Bai. The lands were misused by the family members of late Venkatramireddy by alienating them to various persons and appropriating the sale proceeds for their own. The then, Hon'ble Minister made spot visit of the lands and ordered the RDO of Chevella to resume the lands and accordingly, the RDO under the proceedings, dated 18.12.1975 ordered, the Tahsildar, Chevella to take possession of the lands. All the alienated lands of the temple were resumed and the possession of them, were taken in the year 1975. The land covered by Sy.No.47 belongs to the temple and it is an un-disputed fact. The entire land of Ac.247.00 were 7 recorded in the Sethwar and they were got registered in the name of the temple. The legal heirs of Venkatramireddy filed cases before various courts but, they were un-successful before all the forums. The applicants pressed into the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 wherein, the land covered by Sy.No.47 having the extent of Ac.32.31 guntas shown as Patta land in the name of Mir Basat Ali. Further, the applicants started claiming the ownership 10 over the OA schedule land under various registered sale deeds. They made claim that, originally one Salahuddin Abbas as the owner of the OA schedule land and he sold it to Mirza Anwar Ali Baig. The applicants have to prove strictly the ownership of Salahuddin Abbas over e Sy.No.47.
12. The entries in the Sethwar Patrika bearing No.60 of Ammapally Village discloses that, the land as the Sarkar land and in the column No.3, the name of the cultivator shown as Venkat Rajeshwar Rao Deshmukh. The applicants have not placed any material as to how Salahuddin Abbas became absolute owner of the OA schedule land. The Tahsildar, Chevella in the year 1957, itself resumed the lands therefore, purchasing of the OA schedule lands by Mirza Anwar Ali Baig does not arise. All the alienations which took place from the year 1957 are all illegal as such, Inam lands burdened with service are in-alienable and the sale deed over which, the applicants relying upon carry no value. The various litigations amongst the sharers of late Venkatramireddy before different forums disclose that, all the lands situated at Ammapally Village were Ammapally Agraharam or Inam lands and alienation of the Inam lands by anyone including by a co-sharer 11 is illegal. Respondent No.1 rightly addressed a letter to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 03.04.2002 with a request to stop the registrations. The alleged purchase of the OA schedule land by the applicants was in the year 2000-2001 and such purchases are invalid, illegal. There is no proof to show that Mr.Salahuddin Abbas becoming owner of the OA schedule land either by way of succession or through partition or by way of purchase. Neither the alleged vendors of the applicants nor the applicants have accrued any right or title over the OA schedule property. The applicants were not in legal possession of the OA schedule property and their alleged possession is nothing but an encroachment. The sale deeds and the link documents exhibited by the applicants are all false, fabricated and fictitious documents. They cannot get any right, title over the OA schedule land basing on the fictitious documents. Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji was not the owner and the possessor of the OA schedule land and he was not recognized as such, by any competent authority and he had no right or title to alienate the OA schedule land to anyone. Similarly Mirza Anwar Ali Baig to whom that Salahuddin Abbas said to have sold the OA schedule land has got no right or title over the OA schedule 12 land. Mirza Anwar Ali Baig was not competent to execute registered sale deeds. The sale deeds were brought into existence without any right or title. All the alienations which took place without any notice or knowledge of the temple, is illegal and untenable. Originally the OA schedule land and the other lands belongd to the temple and the same is evident from the basic revenue records. The temple was constructed by their ancestors. Their ancestors apart from constructing the temple also donated Ac.247.00 of land to the temple at Ammapally Village. The OA schedule land is one of such donated lands. The Sethwar of 1334 Fasli establishes that, the OA schedule land as well as other lands as Sarkari lands and the name of their ancestor was recorded as Khatedar for supervising the lands. All the lands of the temple were continued to be in the custody of the temple and the applicants in collusion with the encroachers created false documents to set-up a false claims. They failed to disclose the source of their alleged predecessors in title over the OA schedule land. The OA schedule land is already recorded as the land of the temple in the Book of Endowments. The applicants by taking advantage of mismanagement of the temple properties by late Smt.Radha 13 Lakshmi Bai, who was none else than one of their family members created false, fictitious documents and setup invalid title basing on the un enforceable sale deeds. The said Radha Lakshmi Bai in the year 1960 alienated the temple lands and those alienations were set-aside and possession of the lands alienated by her which includes the OA schedule land was taken over.
13. The 3rd applicant after filing of the counter affidavit by respondent No.1 filed a rejoinder cum reply affidavit wherein, he denied the entry relating to OA schedule land as early as in the year 1971 and no one has questioned till date. In fact, there is no specific entry originally regarding Sy.No.47 and it was added later on under the column along with other survey numbers. The documents filed by the 1st respondent particularly in the orders of O.A.No.1/67 and O.A.No.10/87 there is no mention of survey number 47. The Sethwar of 1334 Fasli clearly shows that, the land covered by Sy.No.47 not as the land of the temple. The entries in the Khasra Pahani and other Pahanies disclose that, the O.A. schedule land as private land. The O.A schedule land is not an Inam or an endowed land. The entry made in the Section 38 register of the OA 14 schedule land is without any notice to the owners of the land, therefore, that entry is illegal and liable for annulment. The OA schedule land originally belongs to one Mr.Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji and he purchased it from one Mir Basat Ali, who was the original Pattedar. The entries in the Khasra Pahani disclose that, the OA schedule land belong to Mir Basat Ali and Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji purchased the said land. Salahiuddin Abbas Tayabji subsequently sold the OA schedule land to Mirza Anwal Ali Baig in the year 1957. Mirza Anwar Ali Baig obtained a validation certificate from Tahsildar, Chevella on 12.08.1966 under Section 50-B of A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Further, Mirza Anwar Ali Baig was not having any other land other than the OA schedule land and which was below the ceiling limit under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 therefore, he was very much entitled to sell the OA schedule land and accordingly, he sold out the entire extent of OA schedule land to one Mr.Deva Priyam.B.Kurut under a registered sale deed, dated 23.04.1976 for a valuable consideration. Subsequently, the applicants purchased the said land and they are enjoying the same as absolute owners. 15
14. The applicants filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments at Hyderabad and before the authority it was numbered as O.A.No.3/2003 and after the constitution of this Tribunal, the O.A was transferred to this Tribunal and it as renumbered as O.A.No.125/2010. Issues 1 to 3 were framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad or by the tribunal. P.W.1 was examined and 51 documents were marked. On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and 15 documents were marked. The tribunal held that "An agraharam or agrahara was a grant of land and royal income from it, typically by a king or a noble family to religious purposes, particular to Brahmins to maintain temples in that land or a pilgrimage site and to sustain their families" and accordingly held that OA schedule land as the endowed land of respondent No.2 temple ant it is not the private and patta land of the applicants and they cannot get title over the OA schedule land and issue No.1 was answered against the applicants. As issue No.1 was answered against them issue No.1 was interlinked with issue Nos.2 and 3 and accordingly they were answered against applicants and the OA was dismissed on 15.03.2019.
16
15. Learned counsel for applicants stated that the scope of the dispute is to be first determined by the Endowments Tribunal. But the Tribunal neither identified the exact dispute between the parties that arose for consideration not it decided the scope and extent of the dispute in question. The tribunal failed to inquire into the real dispute. The tribunal failed to follow the procedure for exercising such judicial power. Respondent No.2 failed to prove that the land belongs to temple an d it is endowment property and thus requested the Court to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019.
16. The main argument of the learned counsel for applicants is that the total extent of the land of the temple is only Ac.222.07 guntas but not Ac.247.00 guntas. They mainly relied upon the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 18.12.1975. Vidyulatha Devi, the co-share holder of Smt. Radha Lakshmi filed an application under Endowments Act. The Commissioner, Endowments Department addressed a letter to the District Registrar vide letter No.C/985/2002 dated 03.04.2002 under Ex.R1 in which it was stated that the total extent of land of Ammapally temple is Ac.222.01 guntas and requested the Registrar not to entertain any sale transaction. 17
17. Learned counsel for applicants and respondents filed separate written arguments and perused the same. Learned counsel for applicants stated that the lands in Sy.No.47 admeasuring Ac.32.31 guntas is not an endowed property of respondent No.2 Sri Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Temple and they are private patta lands of the applicants. Applicants relied upon Ex.P1, Kasra pahani and stated that at column No.13814, Mr.Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji was shown as owner/pattedar and he is in possession as karidhar/purchaser/transferee. As per Sethwar, Ex.P50, along with true translation, the original owner name was shown as Venkatarajeswara Rao Deshmukh and nature of land as Sarkari/Patta and in the year 1957, he sold out the lands to one Mirza Anwar Ali Baig. The said purchaser Sri Mr. Mirza Anwar Ali Baig, also obtained a validation certificate No. C1/1315/66. Dt.12-8-1966, in respect of the said lands from the Thasildar, Chevella, under Section 50-B of the A.P.T.A) tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950. He mainly contended that the certified copies of the Kasra Pahani and other pahanies are filed and marked as Exs.P1 to P37. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no right to issue letter to the Registrar requesting not to register lands in Sy.No.47 even 18 the lands belongs to Endowments, there is procedure contemplated in the registration Act, the state Government may sue motto or on receipt of the proposals of the District collector, should notify the complete description of the property in respect of which registrations are to be prohibited. In the present case, it is not notified by the Government and thus the impugned letter is liable to be set-aside.
18. It is further stated that there is no record to show the said lands are endowed lands of the subject temple, except the entry of Survey number in column No.8, in Sec.38 register (Ex.R.2&3), which is illegally added subsequently, and the same is filed a Xerox copy and no original is available. Even before 1966, they are not endowed lands. As per Ex.P1, there is no mention about the nature of land as Inam/endowed of the subject temple at any column of the Ex.P.1, and it is clearly mentioned as patta lands. The said fact is also established through the Chesala Pahani-1955-58 (Ex.P3), and the relevant pahani for the year-1972-73, (ex.P18), and all other pahanis under Ex.P2,P4 to P37, are clearly establishes that the lands are in the name of Vendor's Vendors are the pattedars and possession holders, and also established that the lands in this 19 subject sy.No.47, are not Inam /endowed lands, which are patta lands. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments addressed a letter to District Registrar dated 03.04.2022 stating that basing on the letter dated 28.03.2002 the said temple owns the following landed properties located in Ammapally and Narkuda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in Sy.Nos.1-5, 7, 8, 10-18, 20-34, 36-43, & 45-47, admeasuring Ac.222-01 gts., and the same were leased out to various persons on a nominal rents, requested the Sub-Registrar not to entertain any sale transaction in respect of the said lands. All the certified copies of the sale deed are filed and marked as Ex. P38-P48. The order of the RDO shows that the lands in Sy.Nos.1 to 46 except the land in Sy.No.47 belong to respondent No.2 temple.
19. It is argued that temple is having lands only to an extent of Ac.222.05 guntas in Sy.No.1-46 only and the lands in Sy.No.47 is not an Inam lands of the temple, and the same are private patta lands. Ex.R.5 Sethwar of Sy.No.47, also clearly shows that the subject lands are not Inam lands & only Private patta lands. It is further submitted that the respondents admitted in their cross Examination that except the alleged 20 disputed entries in Sec.38, (Ex.R2), no other documentary proof that the lands in Sy.No.47 also as part and parcel of the temple Inam endowed lands. As per Ex.R1,3-R.14, the lands in Sy.No.47 are Inam/endowed lands of the subject temple, but it reveals that the same are patta lands of the applicants and its vendors. The documents filed by the respondent more specifically the alleged book of endowments and the Munthakab, not disclosed about the lands in Sy.No.47, and its extent in anywhere, no whisper, and even as per the Ex.R.8 & 9 which are of the orders in O.A. No.1/1967, O.A.No.10/1987, are also not find place about the lands in Sy.No.47, and only confirms that the lands an extent of Ac.222-05, in Sy. No.1-18, 20-34, 36-43, 45 & 46, of Ammapally are belong the subject temple, Inam lands of the subject temple, Ex.R13 & 14 are also not having any mentioned about the schedule land are Inam lands of the temple. Even as per the Map enclosed to the Ex.R10, it discloses the lands of the subject temple at Ammapally, an extent of Ac.222-05, in Sy.No.1-18, 20-34, 36- 43, 45 & 46, only, and the Sy. No.47 is one of the boundary for the total temple lands.
21
20. Respondents stated that as per Sethwar of 1334 Fasli i.e., Gregorian year 1924 which was also marked as Ex.R15 clearly shows that the land in Sy.No.47 is Sarkari and the name of Khatedar is Venkata Rajeswar Rao Deshmukh and the extent of the total area is Ac.32-31. It is stated that Venkata Rajeswara Rao Deshmukh himself did not have any tile or right to alienate the same. The applicants failed to explain to the tribunal the genesis of the land and regarding the question as to how the land mentioned as Sarkari with the name of Venkata Rajeswara Rao Deshmukh in Sethwar of 1924 had mutated in the name private parties. The Sale deed executed by Venkata Rajeshwara Rao Deshmukh was never produced before the tribunal for evidence. The Applicants in their pleadings have stated that the entries in the column 8 of Sec.38 Register are made illegally and an attested photo copy is produced before the Tribunal. As per the Nizam Atiyat Court Orders dt.07.03.1357 Fasli, the Tahsildar of Chevella was ordered to take possession of the said temple lands from encroachers here also the applicants failed to establish that how the Sy.No.47 was omitted in the said order of the Atiyat Court. The entries made in the Sec.38 Register were never challenged by any one. The applicants may have 22 purchased with a bonafide intention and it cannot be rectified. The contention that the Sec.38 register is tampered and altered is nothing but a poly by the Applicants to divert and to deviate the attention of the Tribunal from the issue at hand.
21. Sri Venkit Ram Reddy, the ancestors of the Respondents 5 and 6 acquired the property from his ancestors late Venkata Rajeswar Rao Deshmukh. He was holding several hundreds acres of landed property in Ammapalli village. The survey was conducted in the year 1334 Fasli after conducting survey a Sethwar was prepared. It is submitted that on verification of the Sethwar of 1334 Fasli the said land is recorded as Inam Sarkari and it is in possession of late Sri Venkat Rajeswar Rao Deshmukh and he is recorded as cultivator of the said land. He set apart an extent of Acres 247 land for maintenance of Respondent No.2 temple. P.W.1 clearly admitted before the tribunal that respondent Nos. and 6 have not produced any documents before the tribunal, patta or title deed except pahanies.
22. In O.A.No.243 of 2010, it was held that Smt. Radha Laxmi Bai is mis- managing not only the personal properties left by 23 Venkat Ram Reddy but also temple properties and she sold away the temple property to an extent of Ac.247 to different persons. On the representation filed by late Vidyulathadevi, the R.D.O, Hyderabad (West) taken up enquiry registered the case as Case No.G/8025/1975 and conducted enquiry and directed the Tahsildar, Chevella to resume the lands and hand over the same to the Endowment Department but due to typographical mistake the land in Survey No.47 was missed in the orders. As per Sethwar 1334 Fasli Ex R-14 the name of Sri Venkata Rajeshwar Rao Deshmukh has been recorded as cultivator and the nature of land was recorded as Sarkari and the nature of the land recorded in Ex.R14 Sethwar 1334 Fasli is not changed and it remains Government land under the continuous possession as Khatadar by late Sri Venkat Rajeshwara Rao. Sy.No.47 is not alienable by any one.
23. Learned counsel for respondents further contended that the entries in the revenue record should not confer title but the entries in the Khasra pahani stands at different footing as it is the document of title. It is further stated that Sethwar 1334 Fasli is contrary to Khasra pahani.
24
24. Learned Standing Counsel for Endowments mainly contended that though the appeal was preferred against the RDO order, it was dismissed and the application filed for restoration was also dismissed, as such the proceedings of RDO attained finality.
25. Applicants stated that they came to know about the prohibition of their land in the year 2002 when the orders were passed by the RDO, immediately they filed O.A.No.3 of 2003 and later it was renumbered as O.A.No.125 of 2010.
26. Considering the arguments of both the learned counsel, as Endowments Department itself admitted that the extent of land of their temple was only Ac.222.01, as such this Court finds that there are no merits in the arguments of the appellants and the order dated 15.03.2019 is liable to be set aside and the land in Sy.No.47 of Ac.32.31 guntas situated at Ammapally village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is declared as not an endowed property of Sri Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Temple and it belongs to the appellants/applicants in C.M.A.No.680 of 2019, as such the entries in Section 38 Register is to be set aside and so also the 25 proceedings issued by Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department vide R.C.No.C/985/2002, dated 03.04.2002 are to be set aside.
27. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed by setting aside the order and decree of the tribunal dated 15.03.2019, passed in O.A.No.125 of 2010 (Old O.A.No.3 of 2003). There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 20.08.2024 CHS