Telangana High Court
Professor Kothapalli Jayashankar ... vs The State Of Telangana on 2 September, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 24093 OF 2018
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 17143 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to issue order, direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not taking action on the complaint given by the petitioner's association dated 03.01.2018 against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Endowments Act and consequentially direct the respondents to take necessary action on the complaint given by the petitioner on 03.01.2018 in accordance with law ....."
Writ Petition No. 17143 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief:
" to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 to 5 in acting contrary to the common judgment dated 28.12.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 38720, 38662, 38699 of 2017 and 8746 of 23018 confirmed in W.A.No. 326 of 2019 by judgment dated 18.12.2019 and SLP (C) No. 11307 of 2020 dated 03.11.2020 and in not registering 1500 sq. yards in favour of the petitioners herein pursuant to the letter dated 10.07.2017 of the 4th and 5th respondents in terms of the Lok Adalat award dated 22.10.2011 by considering the letters dated 13.11.2019 made by the petitioners to the 4th and 5th respondents requesting the registration of 1500 sq. yds. (1000 sq. yds. to petitioner No.1 and 500 sq. yds. to petitioner No.2) as 2 illegal, arbitrary, violative of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above and violative of Articles 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 4th respondent to register 1000 sq. yds. to petitioner No.1 and 500 sq. yds. to petitioner No.2 in Plot No. 393 of HMDA Layout situated at Uppal Bhagat Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as per letter dated 10.07.2017 of the 5th respondent ......"
2. Mrs. Rachana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 submits that the 9th respondent temple situated opposite to Gandhi Statue, Uppal Kalan, is a old temple having landed property around Uppal Village and basing on the income of the temple, it is notified as a temple under Section 6(c) of the Endowments Act. She submits that as per the revenue records, the 9th respondent temple is having agricultural land in different survey numbers total admeasuring Acs.18.18 guntas. It is submitted that though it is a notified temple, there is no Executive Officer and one Sri M. Lakshminarayanadas is performing poojas of the 9th respondent temple. She further submits that after his death, his children by name Sri M. Rammohan Sharma, who is the 7th respondent, claims that he is a founder member of the temple. It is submitted that there is no authorisation from the Competent Authority for appointing the 7th respondent as founder family member. It is also submitted that the 6th 3 respondent, who is working in the Endowment Department as an Executive Officer of Balkampet Temple, Sanath Nagar misused the powers and managed to transfer the temple land in the name of his children thereafter executed a partition deed. Learned counsel submits that the HMDA has initiated land acquisition proceedings and lands were acquired by the 4th respondent and an Award was also passed. It is submitted that as per the Award, there is an allotment of 1000 sq. yards of land for each acre who are loosing their lands in this project. It is submitted that in this connection, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments wrote a letter to the 4th respondent to allot the land in favour of the 9th respondent temple. It is submitted that the 6th respondent successfully dragged on the matter and not allowed the department to appoint the Executive Officer and continued the 7th respondent as founder family member. It is submitted that the 6th respondent claimed the compensation and letter was also addressed by the Assistant Commissioner not to register the lands. It is submitted that when they came to know about this, being the devotees, the petitioner Association gave a complaint before the Endowments Department on 03.01.2018. It is submitted that no action has been initiated so far which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 4
3. Though the relief that is sought in Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 is only to consider the representation, this Court on 13.07.2018 directed to maintain status quo with regard to registration of documents relating to the lands covered in Survey Nos. 250, 251, 483, 484, 521, 503, 523, 531 and 536, in an extent of Acs.18.18 guntas situated at Uppal Village and Mandal, Medchal District.
4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent - HMDA stating that after receiving the representation, they have sent a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments to furnish the relevant documents in proof of deserving orders of the revenue authority and endowment department authorities issued in favour of the temple for taking further action on allocating the plots to the awardees. It is submitted that subsequently, the HMDA stopped the conveyance deeds in favour of the awardees and issued notice to the awardees on 20.10.2017. It is submitted that since then, execution of conveyance deed has not been done by the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Y. Rama Rao submits that questioning the same, Respondents 5 to 8 and third party awardees have filed Writ Petition Nos. 38669, 38720 and 38662 of 2017 before this Court and this Court passed 5 interim order on 16.11.2017 restraining the respondents Land Acquisition officer and the HMDA from allotting the plots to the petitioners and to any third parties. It is submitted that subsequently, the said Writ Petitions are disposed of. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as per the revenue records, the lands in question are originally classified as 'Mafi Inam' and subsequently as Dastagardan and thereafter, the revenue authorities mutated the lands as patta lands in the revenue records in favour of late M. Laxminarayana Das as pattadar and after his death, his legal heirs Respondents 5 to 8 herein have succeeded to the property. It is submitted that after following the procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), HMDA has passed Award dated 19.07.2008. It is also submitted that as the monetary compensation awarded by the LAO was not accepted by the petitioner, the same was referred under Section 31(4) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Lok Adalat in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 36, dated 22.01.2011 wherein it was agreed by the government for allotment of 1000 sq. yards developed plot for every Ac.1.00 of land acquired to the awardees. It is submitted that thereafter, they have issued plot allotment letters as per the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and G.O.Ms.No. 36, dated 22.01.2011. Learned Standing Counsel submits that 6 thereafter, the 3rd respondent on 23.01.2017 sent a letter to the HMDA claiming that the property in question was endowed land of deity Sri Ramachandra Swamy Temple, Uppal Village and Mandal and requested for payment of compensation in favour of Endowments Department. It is submitted that they have issued notice to the parties concerned to file proof of title and relevant documents for the subject land for taking further action and they have also requested the 3rd respondent to furnish copy of the endowment register under Section 43 of the Endowments Act and the revenue pahanis and other related documents if any and also requested them to inform whether the subject lands are notified in Telangana State Gazette Notification under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. He submits that thereafter, Respondents 4 to 8 submitted a detailed explanation stating that the lands were originally the personal Mafi Inam Lands granted to the forefathers of Sri M. Laxminaayana Das, S/o late Smt. Seetaramamma, W/o M. Raghava Das. Thereafter, it was also submitted that late Laxminarayana Das obtained ORC under Section 4 of the Indian Abolition Act vide proceedings dated 03.04.1989 subject to payment of premium amount equal to ten times of land revenue for the Inams Tribunal-cum-DRO, East, R.R. District and ORC 7 was issued on 21.04.1989 after payment of the 1st instalment in Form-III in respect of wet lands in Survey Nos. 247(1-02), 250(2-12), 251(2-17), 483 (1-17), 484 (0-13), 485 (2-03), 503 (1-
03), 521 (1-39), 523(1-04), 536 (1-28) and 781 (1-26) total extent of Acs.18.24 guntas. It is submitted that then the MRO, Uppal Mandal issued orders of implementation of ORC and mutation in revenue records vide proceedings dated 29.07.1989 and also issued pattadar passbook in favour of Late M. Laxminarayana Das. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Joint Collector, R.R. District confirmed the ORC granted under Section 4 by the Inams Tribunal on an Appeal filed by the 3rd party and dismissed the Appeal in the year 1994. The Endowments Tribunal also declared the subject lands as not endowed duly confirmed by the Commissioner of Endowments / Respondent No.2 and Revision Petition filed thereon was also dismissed. According to the learned Standing Counsel, after demise of late M. Laxminarayana Das, his wife and four sons succeeded to the property and obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and the learned Special Government Pleader has appeared in this 8 matter. It is stated that at present, Sri M. Rammohan Sharma is the founder family member of the subject temple who is looking after the administration of the temple. It is submitted that Sri M. Venkateshwara Sharma, S/o Laxminarayana Das was working as the Executive Officer in Sri Yellamma Pochamma Temple, Balkampet, Hyderabad in Endowment Department and retired from service on 31.07.2020. It is submitted that as per the revenue records and as per the Chesala, Survey Nos. 247, 250, 251, 483, 484, 485, 503, 521, 523, 531, 536 and 781 reflecting in the name of Sri Deval Sri Ramulu as a pattadar and the temple lands in question are classified as 'Service Inam lands', details of which were duly entered in Muntakab of 1310 Fasli Payaga and also in Inam Register. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the temple lands are classified as Dastagardan lands and Sri Deval Sri Ramulu was recorded as Inamdar and was shown as possessor in the ROR and the said inam lands are under the possession and enjoyment of Archakas-cum- Trustee of Sri Seetha Ramchandra Swamy Temple for rendering service to the temple ie. inam burdened with service. He further submits that the entire land was in possession of the Hereditary trustee who are also Archakas of the temple and performing Archakatvam as 9 the inam was burdened with service. He submits that post 1988-89, there was a change in column of pattadar by entering the names of Sri Mothukuri Lakshmi Narayana Das and others as pattadars replacing the name of Sri Deval Sri Ramulu and presently in the revenue records, the name of HMDA is reflecting in possession column. It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has addressed a letter to the Commissioner on the basis of inspection report dated 16.05.2016 and requested to appoint Smt. L. Bhagya Lakshmi as in-charge Executive Officer to the temple who is working as Executive Officer for a nearby temple. It is also submitted that subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner has also submitted a detailed representation dated 23.02.2017 to the Commissioner and requested to permit for filing Civil Revision Petition against the founder family member in the interest and better administration of the institution and permission was granted for filing Revision against the founder family member thereby protecting the temple land. It is submitted that the lands given to Inamdar is burdened with service and the Inamdar is the hereditary trustee and also the archaka of the temple. It is further submitted that the entire land will be under possession of the hereditary trustee as usual. And the Inam land cannot be 10 apportioned between the temple and archakas as they are subject to resumption at any time. Therefore, the only alternative is to apportion the income from the lands. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the temple is in fact entitled to get 1/3rd share in the income from the lands and the hereditary trustee should deposit 1/3rd share in the income of the temple towards its maintenance expenditure and the rest of the income shall be utilised by him towards the services rendered to the temple in the capacity of the archaka. The hereditary trustee cannot claim any share in the offerings. It is submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, has wrongly interpreted and issued ORC in favour of the hereditary trustees and the same was implemented by the MRO dated 29.07.1989. It is submitted that the hereditary trustee / founder family member has filed O.A.No. 1 of 1990 in the office of the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad for deletion of the above-mentioned Survey Nos. 247, 250, 251, 483, 484, 485, 503, 521, 523, 531, 536 of Uppal Bhagat and 781 of Uppal Kalan Villages from the '38 Register'. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in his order dated 09.02.1990 has given cross reference of the orders given by the Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department 11 dated 10.06.1985 and also the details of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer who has pronounced order dated 03.04.1989 and the Deputy Commissioner has interpreted that the entries in column 8 of 38 register subject to condition that the petitioner and his successors will be responsible for proper maintenance of temple and rendering service without any complaint. It is also submitted that the order given by the then Deputy Commissioner was confirmed by the then Commissioner, Endowments and the Assistant Commissioner concerned has implemented the same. It is submitted that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings, dated 12.07.1994 has pronounced the order wherein the Joint Collector has referred to the interpretation and also endorsed their respective orders given by the then Revenue Divisional Officer and the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments. It is stated that the ORC issued under the Inams Abolition Act is not applicable to the endowment-related properties. However, notwithstanding the above facts and statutory provisions, the Revenue Divisional Officer has wrongly interpreted the facts and issued the ORC in favour of the hereditary trustee, which was the primary cause for the litigation over the temple lands. Hence, they prayed that the Court may be pleased to pass 12 orders in the interest of justice to safeguard the immovable properties of the temple.
6. Learned counsel Sri Venkata Rama Rao appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents submits that on 21.04.1989, ORC was issued by the Inams Tribunal under Section 4 of the Inams Act. He submits that on 29.07.1989, the Mandal Revenue Officer has passed mutation orders under the ROR Act. According to the learned counsel, on 12.07.1994, the Appeal filed by the 3rd party before the Joint Collector under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955 was dismissed and ORC was confirmed. It is submitted that on 08.02.2007, mutation orders in favour of legal heirs of late Laxminarayana Das have attained finality under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Learned counsel submits that as far as the proceedings with regard to Endowment Tribunal are concerned, on 10.06.1985, the Joint Commissioner, Endowments passed orders holding that the personal inam lands burdened with service cannot be treated as endowed lands. It is submitted that on 09.02.2019, the Tribunal under Section 87 read with Section 45 of the Endowments Act declared that the property in question is not endowed and ordered annulment of the entries of Section 38 register in 13 O.A.No. 1 of 1990. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner of Endowments issued the orders confirming the quasi-judicial order dated 09.02.1990 passed by the Deputy Commissioner - cum- Endowments Tribunal which held that subject land is not an endowed property. He submits that on 31.01.1994, the Revision filed by third party before the Joint Commissioner under Section 92 of the Endowments Act was dismissed. It is submitted that the orders passed by the Endowments Department with regard to the finding that properties are not endowed has attained finality under the Endowments Act. It is submitted that thereafter, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 24.09.2011, as per the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 36, dated 22.01.2011. Thereafter, notices were issued to the unofficial respondents. It is submitted that on 10.07.2017 allotment letters with schedule of plots was issued by the LAO and on 26.10.2017, notice was issued by the LAO at the instance of HMDA Commissioner not to execute conveyance deeds. On 28.12.2018, the said notices issued by the HMDA by LAO were set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 38720 of 2017 and batch and directed the HMDA to execute conveyance deeds in favour of the writ petitioners. Learned counsel submits 14 that on 18.12.2019, Writ Appeal No. 326 of 2019 filed by the Commissioner of Endowments of Endowments & Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, was dismissed by the High Court confirming the rights of the awardees. It is submitted that SLP No. 11307 of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn and Writ Appeal No. 266 of 2020 filed by the 3rd respondent against the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 38720 of 2017 and batch were dismissed.
7. Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition 17143 of 2021 submits that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 falling in Survey No. 247 Part of Uppal Bhagat Village having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 21.08.2006 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Uppal, alienated by Smt. Mothukuri Janakamma, Sri M. Raghav Das, Sri M. Krishna Sarma, Sri M. Venkateshwara Sharma and Sri M. Ram Mohan Sharma. It is submitted that the petitioners have another extent of Ac.0.18 guntas in the same survey number under registered sale deed dated 25.08.2007 registered as document No. 10327 of 2007 alienated by Sri S. Dharma Reddy. Learned counsel submits that his vendors who are the respondents in Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 are the owners 15 of vast extent having obtained ORC in the year 1987. He submits that all the proceedings both from the revenue as well as endowment have attained finality and the vendors of the petitioners are declared as owners of the property. He submits that the State Government had taken up the project Musi River Conservation and River Front Development at Uppal Bhagat and in terms of the policy of the government and the decision to accord permission for allotment of 1000 square yards of developed area per acre in lieu of compensation to the land owners, the land owners are given their willingness under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, he submits that as stated in the earlier Writ Petition, series of litigation has started which went up to the Supreme Court and SLP (C) No. 11307 was dismissed by order dated 03.11.2020 as withdrawn with liberty to file review application before this Court. It is submitted that instead of filing a review application before the Division Bench, Respondents 2 and 3 had deliberately filed review petition in the Writ Petition which is not maintainable at all in view of doctrine of merger. He submits that as promised the land was not registered in favour of the petitioners in terms of the allotment made on 10.07.2017 that the status quo orders passed by this Court with regard to registration in I.A.No. 1 of 16 2018 in Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 filed by the 6th respondent herein. He submits that the petitioners have filed the implead petition in the present Writ petition. It is submitted that Respondents 1 to 6 herein are creating one proceedings after the other and thereby denying to register the plot as agreed upon in the Lok Adalat Award which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.
8. The subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.
9. Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in considering the complaint given by the petitioner Association dated 03.01.2018. Beyond the prayer that is sought in the Writ Petition, this Court by order dated 13.07.2018 has granted interim direction not to register the land for an extent of Ac.18.18 guntas. The petitioner Association has come up before this Court and stalled the entire registration process without even ascertaining the information with regard to the ownership of the temple and the proceedings that have taken place where the occupancy rights which are granted in favour of the unofficial respondents were confirmed and attained finality. Successfully from 2018, the 17 petitioners are able to stall the proceedings and also by virtue of that, they could successfully stop the unofficial respondents who are the owners of the property from making any development or enjoying the said property.
10. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the HMDA as well as by the Assistant Commissioner. This Court is surprised by the manner in which the counter is filed before this Court. The Endowments Department which is a party to the litigation wherein in respect of the very same property ie. in respect of an extent of Ac.18.00 the proceedings went on before the revenue authorities and the endowments authorities. Before both the authorities, the unofficial respondents have succeeded and the ORC granted in favour of the unofficial respondents was held to be valid and also the properties are held to be not the endowed properties. In view of the proceedings dated 21.04.1989, the ORC has attained finality and the Appeals filed by them were also dismissed further. The Commissioner also issued the confirmation orders holding that the said land is not an endowment land. When those proceedings have attained finality, very unfortunately a counter affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner making a vague statement stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued the ORC without 18 looking into all the relevant documents. When the proceedings with regard to granting ORC has attained finality, it is not open to the respondents to take such ground having been unsuccessful before the endowments as well as the revenue departments. This is the classic example how for the sake of litigation, the litigation has been started and how conveniently they have continued it for a period of four years by causing undue hardship to the unofficial respondents and respondents in Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 and to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17143 of 2021.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has come up before this Court with all frivolous grounds and also the submission that a review is pending cannot be a ground to stall the proceedings. How a review is filed before a learned Single Judge when the order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench is not known. Be that as it may, that is not an impediment for this Court to pass any orders.
12. Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 is filed without any basis and without verifying the correct facts deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, taking a lenient view 19 and also warning the petitioner not to indulge in this type of litigation, Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018 is dismissed.
12. It is appropriate to mention here that the Endowments Department, like a chronic litigant, has filed the counter and this kind of litigation on behalf of the State has to be deprecated. The State should have been fair in placing the facts before the Court. This kind of approach is not good for the system and the respondents shall be careful hereafter in filing counters and contesting the matters.
13. In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 24093 of 2018, and in the light of the counter filed by the HMDA that in view of the order passed in W.P. No. 24093 of 2018, they are not able to register the land, Writ Petition No. 17143 of 2021 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 02nd September 2022 ksld 20 21