WP/1514/2008 of N. Rajakrishna Prasad, Vs Sri Alahsingarappa Swamy Temple, on 30 December 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the writ petitioners seeking the following relief/s:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order ordirection declaring the action of the respondents herein in trying to evictthe petitioners and others from an extent of Ac.13-10 cents of land inR.S.No.18/1C; 16/F, 18/1-I and 19/2 of Tallagudem Village, PedapaduMandal, West Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdictionthat too without restoring earlier order of dismissal dt.16-11-2005, ex parteeviction order passed dt.27-9-2007 and I.A.No. 56/2007 to set aside exparte order in O.A.No.144/2001 before Deputy Commissioner Kakinada ispending adjudication is perse illegal and without jurisdiction andconsequently stay of all further proceedings including not to dispossessthe petitioners from the schedule land and to pass such other order ordersas are deemed fit and.”

(Reproduced verbatim)

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the writpetitioners, the learned standing counsel for the 1[st] respondent temple andthe learned Government Pleader for Endowments (AP) appearing forrespondents 2 to 5. I have perused the material record.

The case of the writ petitioners, as set out in the writ petition and asper the submissions made at the hearing, in brief, is this:- “The writ petitioners are in possession of the land in a total extent ofAcs.13.10 cents in R.S.No.18/1C, 16/F, 18/1-I and 19/2 of TallagudemVillage of Pedapadu Mandal of West Godavari District. The subject landswere never treated as temple lands. The respondents in the writ petitionhave no concern with the said lands. On the Inam application in D.DisNo.2399/2000 D of the 1[st] respondent earlier filed in the year 2000, an orderdated 27.08.2001 was passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluruinter alia holding that the subject lands are not Inam lands and that RyotwariPattas were given to render services to the Devasthanam. In the saidproceedings, it was further observed that the writ petitioners herein hadfailed to prove their possession of the subject lands and that remedial action

Conclusion

under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutionsand Endowments Act, 1987, (‘Act 30 of 1987’, for brevity) has to be initiatedagainst the writ petitioners. In the appeal petition in misc. petition no.1 of2001 preferred by the writ petitioners, the Joint Collector, West Godavari byhis orders dated 29.01.2001 had held that the Revenue Divisional Officerhas no jurisdiction to entertain the aforementioned application underSection 77 of the Act 30 of 1987 and that the subject lands are Ryoti landsbelonging to the temple. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent had filedO.A.No.144 of 2001 before the Deputy Commissioner Endowments,Kakinada against the petitioners herein and others under Section 83 of theAct 30 of 1987 inter alia stating that they are the encroachers. While thatpetition is being resisted by petitioners herein and others i.e., therespondents therein, an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of PW1 wasfiled. But, subsequently, PW1 had failed to appear in the said proceedings;and, therefore, the said O.A.No.144 of 2001 was dismissed for default by anorder dated 16.11.2005. Subsequently, the order dated 27.09.2007 waspassed ordering eviction of the writ petitioners and others from the subjectlands. A perusal of the said order would show that the said order waspassed without stating as to when the order dated 16.11.2005 dismissingO.A.No.144 of 2001 for default was set aside and when the OA wasrestored to file. In fact no order setting aside the dismissal order for defaultwas passed and the OA was not restored to file by following the procedureestablished by law; and, however, the eviction order was passed as if noorder of dismissal was ever passed earlier in the O.A. A perusal of the saidorder would also show that before passing the eviction orders, noopportunity, in accordance with the procedure established by law, wasgiven to the writ petitioners and others i.e., the respondents therein tocontest the aforementioned O.A. Since the said order is an invalid and is anex parte order passed without a valid order for restoration, the writpetitioners were obliged to file an application in I.A.No.56 of 2007 to setaside the ex parte order in O.A.No.144 of 2001 inter alia contending that thesaid order is illegal and is one passed without jurisdiction. However, thesaid application is kept pending and is not being considered and disposed of in accordance with the procedure established by law. Hence, feelingaggrieved, the writ petitioners had filed this writ petition.”

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners made submissions in-line with the pleadings in the writ petition. The relevant pleadings in the writpetition and the submissions are already stated spura, in brief.

The learned standing counsel for the first respondent temple wouldfairly submit that from the material record it would appear that the ex parteorder was passed without setting aside the order of dismissal for default andwithout giving an opportunity to the writ petitioners to contest O.A.No.144 of2001 after duly setting aside the dismissal order for default dated16.11.2005. In view of the establishment of the Andhra PradeshEndowments Tribunal at Guntur and the undisputed facts of the instantcase, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners makes a request to directthe said Tribunal to dispose of I.A.No.56 of 2007, which is filed to set asidethe order dated 27.09.2007 made in O.A.No.144 of 2001 by the DeputyCommissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada,. The learned standingcounsel would submit that the temple has no objection for the petitionerseeking such a relief.

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,this writ petition is disposed of directing that the Deputy CommissionerEndowments, Kakinada shall submit the entire duly indexed record of thecase to the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Guntur as expeditiouslyas possible and at any rate not later than two (02) months from the date ofthe receipt of a copy of this order; and that on such submission of therecords, the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Guntur shall entertainand take up I.A.No.56 of 2007 in O.A.No.144 of 2001 originally pendingbefore the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, anddispose of the said application in strict accordance with the procedureestablished by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to boththe sides. It is made clear that the writ petitioners are at liberty to take all thepleas available to them, which the law permits. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shallstand closed.

30[th] December, 2015Bvv

______________________

M.Seetharama Murti, J