WP/27062/2006 of C. Pushpalatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, on 28 December 2006

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

W.P.No.27062 of 2006

--28122006

Between:-

C. Pushpalatha

Petitioner

And

State of Andhra PradeshRep.by its Principal Secretary,Endowment Department, Hyderabad and four others.

Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMW.P.No. 27062 of 2006Oral order:

The petitioner claims to be a lessee of a sitebelonging to the fifth respondent – KandulaGovindacharyulu Trust, Tirupati, Chittoor district, anendowment institution, covered and governed by theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and HinduReligious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (forshort ‘the Act’). The petitioner asserts to have beengranted a lease in 1996 for a period of five years on terms,which entitles renewal automatically, but on conditions.

In the year 2001, O.A.No. 119 of 2001 was suomotu taken up by the third respondent for declaring thepetitioner as an ‘encroacher’ and for directing hereviction. According to the petitioner, without affording reasonable opportunity of appearance and contest, on 23-10-2006 an order was passed by the third respondentin O.A.No. 119 of 2001 declaring the petitioner to be an‘encroacher’ and directing the petitioner to remove theencroachment within fifteen days from the date of orderand handover the vacant possession of the property tothe fifth respondent. In default, the third respondent wasdirected that action would be taken under Section 84 ofthe Act for removing the encroachments. The petitionerreceived this order on 13-11-2006 and on the same dayfiled an application seeking setting aside the ex-parteorder of eviction.

Further, according to the petitioner, on 21-12-2006,the endowment officials came to the site and threatenedeviction of the petitioner whereupon she rushed to theHyderabad and on 22-12-2006 filed the writ petition. While so, on 23-12-2006 before the writ petition could betaken up for consideration, the respondents, in particularthe fifth respondent is stated to have put a lock on thepremises, earlier in the occupation of the petitioner.

Sri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel for thepetitioner would urge that as the petitioner’s application forsetting aside the ex-parte order filed on 13-11-2006 ispending, it would be in the interests of equity and justicethat the possession of the petitioner should be continuedtill the disposal of the said application particularly since the petitioner is in continuous possession, occupation andenjoyment of the property in question since 1956. Thiscourt is not inclined to record any finding, conclusions ormake observations on the legitimacy or otherwise of thepetitioner’s status as a lessee within a frame work of theAct and the relevant rules. These areas are moreappropriately considered either in the O.A. itself, if thepetitioner’s application dated 13-11-2006 seeking settingaside the order in the O.A. is favourably considered or inany remedies the petitioner may pursue against the orderin the O.A. As the petitioner’s application dated 13-11-2006 does not call for a substantive adjudication, the thirdrespondent should in all fairness, dispose of thepetitioner’s application for setting aside the ex-parte orderexpeditiously.

In the circumstances, the third respondent isdirected to consider and dispose of the petitioner’sapplication dated 13-11-2006 seeking setting aside of theex-parte order dated 23-10-2006 in O.A.No. 119 of 2001,expeditiously and in any event within a period of threedays from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereasoned decision of the third respondent to be passedshall be communicated to the petitioner within theaforesaid time. Nothing in the order of this court shall beconstrued as an expression by this court on the merits ofthe application of the petitioner or on the merits of the

petitioner’s claim to being a lawful lessee of the property ofthe fifth respondent. The third respondent shall considerthe application of the petitioner on its own merits anddispose of the same in accordance with law. The writpetition is disposed of at the stage of admission afterhearing the learned Government Pleader forEndowments. No costs.

____________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J

Dated:28-12-2006Pvks/*