IMPORTANT POINT
Writ of prohibition prohibiting the civil courts from proceedings with the civil suit must be issued only in rarest of rare cases and judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Articles 32 & 226-Writ of prohibition against Courts-Powers of Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs-Principles which govern exercise of such power, must be strictly observed-A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases.
       Held : The Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs, including a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is normally issued only when the inferior Court or Tribunal (a) proceeds to act without or in excess of jurisdiction, (b) proceeds to act in violation of rules of natural justice, (c) proceeds to act under law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional, or (d) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights. The principles, which govern exercise of such power, must be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs. It must be remembered that the writ jurisdiction is original jurisdiction distinct from appellate jurisdiction. An appeal cannot be allowed to be disguised in the form of a writ. In other words, this power cannot be allowed to be used "as a cloak of an appeal in disguise". Lax use of such a power would impair the dignity and integrity of the subordinate Court and could also lead to chaotic consequence. It would undermine the confidence of the subordinate Court. (Para 14)
       (ii) Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956-Section 14-Proceedings under the Act-Suit lands situated on Tirumala Hills where temple of Sri Venkateshwara Swamy is situated-Appellants are statutory Devasthanam in control and management of the temple-They filed a suit in civil Court seeking a declaration that they are absolute owner of lands-Grant of patta by Deputy Tahsildar in favour of respondents challenged by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer-Appellants case that Inam was to the temple and not a personal grant to respondents-Respondents Inamdars filed writ petitions, one regard to civil suit and other in regard to appeal before Divisional Officer for restraining them from proceeding further in the matters-Whether High Court was justified in issuing writ of prohibition against the Civil Court and Court of Revenue Officer-(No)-Impugned judgment to the extent it prohibits the civil court from proceeding with the suit, set aside-However, writ preventing Revenue Authorities from proceeding further with appeal must continue-Constitution of India-Article 226-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 14 Rule 2.
       Held : It could not be denied that the civil Court, before which the suit was pending, had powers to decide on the maintainability of the suit and to decide on questions of its jurisdiction. The civil Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the suit was barred by Section 14 of the said Act or on principles of res judicata/estoppel. Thus unless there was some very cogent or strong reason the High Court should not have prevented the Court of competent jurisdiction from deciding these questions. In other words the High Court should not usurp the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide these questions. In the impugned Judgment no reason, much less a cogent or strong reason, has been given as to why the civil Court could not be allowed to decide these questions. The impugned Judgment does not state that the civil Court had either proceeded to act without or in excess of jurisdiction or that it had acted in violation of rules of natural justice or that it had proceeded to act under law which was ultra vires or unconstitutional or proceeded to act in contravention of fundamental rights. The impugned Judgment does not indicate as to why the High Court did not consider it expedient to allow the civil Court to decide on questions of maintainability of the suit or its own jurisdiction. The impugned judgment does not indicate why the civil Court be not allowed to decide whether the suit was barred by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act or on principles of res judicata/estoppel. To be remembered that no fundamental right is being violated when a Court of competent jurisdiction is deciding, rightly or wrongly, matters before it. (Para 14)
       In view of what is set out herein above we set aside the impugned Judgment to the extent that it prohibits the civil Court from proceeding with Suit 69 of 1995. We direct the civil Court to frame and decide, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from today, preliminary issues as to maintainability of the suit in view of Section 14 of the said Act and whether the suit is barred on principles of res judicata/estoppel. We are in agreement with the observations of the High Court that grant of Patta to the Respondents was a formality in pursuance of the decisions in the earlier round of litigation. It is only if it is held that the Appellants suit is maintainable and not barred on principles of res judicata/estoppel that the Appellants can be allowed to pursue the appeal. Thus the writ of prohibition preventing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati from proceeding with the appeal preferred by the Appellants against the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in S.R. No. 1/95 dated 9.8.1995 must continue for the present. Those proceedings shall therefore continue to remain stayed till after the final decision on the preliminary issues. If the preliminary issues are finally answered in favour of the Appellants then the writ of prohibition in respect of the appeal shall automatically stand vacated. If however the preliminary issues are finally answered against the Appellants the writ of prohibition shall stand confirmed. (Paras 23 and 24)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 25th September, 1996 by which two Writ Petitions seeking writs of prohibition and a contempt petition have been disposed of.

2. The dispute in this proceedings relates to 28.58 acres in Survey Number 686, 645 and 679 of Tirumala Village. This land is situated on Tirumala Hills where the temple of Sri Venkateshwara Swamy is situated. The Appellants are the statutory Devasthanam in control and management of the temple. The facts leading to the present litigation are set out in the impugned Judgment. In the impugned Judgment the Appellants are referred to as "T.T.D." whereas the Respondents are referred to as "the Tallapaka people". The facts, as set out in the impugned Judgment, are as follows:

"4. Sri Krishna Devaraya one of the greatest Emperors who ruled southern India in the 15th century granted an extent of Ac. 27-04 cents of land on Tirumala Hills (now covered by Survey Nos. 586 and 645) to Sri Tallapaka Annamacharya, the celebrated saint, composer and reformer, the progenitor of the petitioners herein (for short "the Tallapaka people"). Annamacharya was a great devotee of Lord Venkateswara, in whose praise he wrote and composed music for 32,000 devotional songs. He attained immortality as the greatest devotee of Lord Venkateswara and also the founder of the Bhakti cult, propagating the philosophy of Sri Ramanuja. Kings and emperors showered upon him honours and granted large number of inams in recognition of the spiritual service he rendered. He and his descendants, for over centuries, endowed vast properties for religious and charitable purposes. Tallapaka Venkata Seshacharyulu, the father of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8347 of 1996 and C.C. No. 373 of 1996 was the 12th descendant of Annamacharya.

5. The T.T.D. filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri in 1962 under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 against Tallapaka Venkata Seshacharyulu seeking resumption of the inam alleging that it was a grant in favour of the "Manager for the time being of Nandanavanam at Tirumala or Tirupati to be held for the support of Sri Venkataswara Swamy Pagoda at Tirumala and to be held so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled". The T.T.D. contended that the grant was for the maintenance of flower and Tulsi garden and fruit bearing trees for the daily worship of and offering to Lord Venkateswara but neither offerings were made nor plants and trees maintained much less flowers and Tulsi plants were supplied from the Nandanavanam to the deity by the inamdars. The T.T.D. therefore, prayed for; (i) resumption of the inam and determining it as a grant of both melwaram and kudiwaram (land revenue as well as proprietary right ); and (ii) regranting the inam to the T.T.D. as an endowment. That application was disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri had already issued a ryotwari patta under the Inams Abolition Act in favour of the T.T.D. and, therefore, no further relief was called for. The inamdars carried the matter in revision to the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records (for short "the Commissioner") under Section 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short "the Inams Abolition Act") and the Commissioner, while allowing the revision, remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry on the ground that while granting patta in favour of the T.T.D. the Deputy Tahsildar had not issued notices to the parties .

6. After the remand, the Deputy Tahsildar conducted an enquiry under Section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act after notices to both the Institution (T.T.D.) and the inamdars and recorded a finding that the land in question is an inam land in Ryotwari village and that it was not held by an institution. On appeal, preferred by the T.T.D., the Revenue Divisional Officer af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 875

IMPORTANT POINT Writ of prohibition prohibiting the civil courts from proceedings with the civil suit must be issued only in rarest of rare cases and judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs.

Cases Referred (15)

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ of prohibition prohibiting the civil courts from proceedings with the civil suit must be issued only in rarest of rare cases and judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs.