WP/18794/2006 of Smt. Thota Jhansi Laxmi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government, on 26 December 2006

Conclusion

ORAL ORDER:

The writ petition is misconceived.

The petitioner admits to be an encroacher, in illegal occupationof 100 sq.yards site in Sy.No.20, Vaddepalli village, SattenapalliMandal, Guntur District, belonging to Sri Ranganayaka SwamyTemple, Solasa village, Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District.

The petitioner asserts that she and 245 others had encroachedand squatted on the Temple lands for long. The petitioner claims tohave constructed houses and that the Sattenapalli municipality allottedher a door number too, for the construction. He states that theDevasthanam is not deriving any income as the land in an extent ofAc.4.97 cents out of Ac.7.47 cents is rocky and barren. In thecircumstances, the petitioner implies that to relieve the Temple of itsunproductive property, she and others have illegally encroached uponthe land.

After the encroachment, the Commissioner of Endowments, the 2[nd] respondent, on the basis of representations by the encroachers, ispleaded to have became solicitous for the welfare of the encroachersand addressed letters to the 1[st] respondent, to alienate the land of theDevasthanam, in favour of the encroachers. The 1[st] respondent isstated to have appointed a Three Man Committee which hadrecommended for alienation of the temple lands in favour of theencroachers. The 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents are also stated to be incorrespondence to peg down the price at which the sale could bemade so that the encroachers would be benefited (though theendowment deprived of a just return on the capital/market value for itsproperty). As no concrete, eventual and final orders were passed bythe 1[st] respondent despite a series of letters said to have beenaddressed by the 2[nd] respondent (directing alienation of lands infavour of the petitioner and other encroachers), the petitioner has filedthis writ petition.

The petitioner does not place before this court any materialdisclosing the authority of the Government to alienate the property ofan endowment or charitable institutions in favour of encroachers. TheA.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1987 (for short ‘the Act’) enacts swift and summary procedure forevicting encroachers. For ensuring competent administration of Hindureligious and charitable institutions, the State Government has alsoappointed a battery of endowment officials, who are paid out of thepublic exchequer, they are seen however to be consistently complacent. No steps have been taken to evict the encroachers. Instead, as would appear from the accompanying material papers, the2[nd] respondent as head of endowment administration in the State(under the provisions of the Act) is more solicitous towards theencroachers than cognizant of his statutory responsibility for ensuringthe proper management of endowment institutions. Having subvertedhis functions and misdirected himself as to his appropriate and corestatutory obligations, the 2[nd]respondent appears to havecorresponded with the 1[st] respondent to alienate the land in favour ofthe encroachers instead of directing expeditious eviction of theencroachers. Some local legislators are also pleaded to havechampioned the cause of the encroachers. As the petitioner has widesupport representing her; some legislator, the Commissioner ofEndowments and the State Government and as the Endowment isorphaned despite the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is seen tohave become emboldened to file a writ petition for a Mandamus todirect the 1[st] respondent to direct the 2[nd] respondent to alienate thelands in her favour at a price of her choice.

The provisions of the Act mandate proper management of theproperties of the endowment institution. They enjoin a statutoryobligation on the Government, the officials of the endowmentdepartment and on the managers of religious and charitableinstitutions to effectively, regularly and relentlessly pursue propermanagement of the secular assets of endowment institutions. It is no part of the statutory obligations of the 2[nd] respondent to pursue theinterests of encroachers. The 2[nd] respondent is required toindependently and assiduously discharge his statutory functions. The 1[st] respondent has also no jurisdiction to direct alienation ofendowment properties for a value less than the market price. The 1[st]respondent, if it is so solicitously inclined towards encroachers, isalways at liberty to allot Government property or property at its disposalto encroachers or may even provide grants for construction of housesi n favour of encroachers. Liquidation of endowment properties doesnot however appear to be within the authority of the State Government.

On the aforesaid analysis, no relief could be granted. There areno merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as tocosts.

-------------------------------

GODA RAGHURAM, J

Date: 26.12.2006

cvm