Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, K.C.BHANU
M.Deva Narayana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., Revenue (Endowments III) Dept. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-23-04
Land acquisition Act – Sections 4 (1), 18 – Andhra pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 – Section 121 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Land Revenue Code, 1879 – Sections 65 and 211 – Rules 32 and 33 –Issue on allotment of Land –learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal contended that the State government entertained the revision on an application from the Executive Officer of TTD after a long delay from the date of resolution and the revision petition so filed in barred by limitation –learned counsel for the appellants while adopting the submissions made referred to hereinabove, contended that the third respondent in Writ Appeal had withdrawn the reference on the assurance given by the executive Officer of the TTD and thus given up a very valuable right on the promise made by the Devasthanams and in the circumstances Devesthanams cannot be allowed to turn around and dispute the correctness of the allotment of the land in favour of the appellants –learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever available on record to support the conclusion that the allotment of alternative and enabling private individuals to raise structure or constructions will effect the sanctity and serenity of the temple –Held, Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the resolutions in question making available the alternative land to the appellants and granting lease in their favour are contrary to the said Rules and therefore it is not open to the appellants to invoke the principle of promissory estoppels Court find to merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the third respondent in Writ Appeal has withdrawn his claim and had lost valuable right and therefore the respondents cannot be allowed to go back on their promise –Court has already noticed the conduct of the appellants and the manner in which their predecessor tried to overreach and went ahead with the construction even in the absence of any valid permission. It is a situation created by the appellants and their predecessor for themselves. It is a case of spider getting caught in its own web–Court do not find any merit in the contention that the case on hand is a colourable exercise of power by the government for the reasons, which we have indicated supra –Writ Appeals dismissed
( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals require to be disposed of together since they are directed against the common order dated 18-7-2003 made in Writ Petition No. s 19149 and 20009 of 2002 by a learned single Judge of this court. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petitions.
( 2 ) IN order to consider whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, it is just and necessary to notice the relevant facts. FACTUAL MATRIX:
( 3 ) THAT an extent of 30,000 square feet of land in possession of the fourth petitioner in writ Petition No. 19149 of 2002 (who is impleaded as third respondent in Writ appeal No. 1311 of 2003) situated outside the four Mada street at Tirumala was acquired under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 for the benefit of tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanams (for short "ttd" ). A notification dated 25-5-1987 was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. Award dated 11-8-1991 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation by duly fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 11. 00 per square foot. He sought for reverence of the award to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
( 4 ) NOT only the land in possession of the fourth petitioner but also vast extents of properties situated at Tirumala were acquired for the benefit of TTD. Questioning the acquisition, a batch of writ petitions was filed in this Court by the persons in occupation of the lands at Tirumala. This court by its judgment dated 23-3-1989 dismissed all the writ petitions with the observation:"in so far as the religious denominations are concerned, the temple authorities have stated that they would surely provide alternate accommodation thereby enabling them to systematically develop and not to a distant place from the temple. In case of traders, wherever buildings are constructed for the purpose of providing shops the same will be allotted to them on lease basis as far as possible. In so far as the individual residents are concerned, it will be examined in respect of each individual case and alternate accommodation will be provided to them as per feasibility, availability and genuineness. The township of Tirumala needs to be systematically developed mainly around the temple and the entire temple must be a shining example to the sacred places because this temple is unique in many respects and it is said to be the richest temple in the world. "the writ appeals filed by the writ petitioners therein were also dismissed by the common judgment dated 16-3-1990.
( 5 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ appeals, the Board of Trustees of TTD appointed a sub-Committee to make an in-depth study of problem of acquisition and displacement of several individuals and submit is report to the Board for taking appropriate action. The Sub-Committee submitted its recommendations, the details where of are not required to be noticed. The Board of trustees vide resolution No. 159 dated 28-5-1992 allotted an extent of 9000 square feet (Plot No. 30, Ananthapalligunta) to the fourth petitioner on lease basis for twenty years on a monthly ground rent of rs. 1000/- subject to withdrawal of the reference sought by him under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation.
( 6 ) FOURTH petitioner made an application addressed to the TTD stating that he has entered into a sale agreement with the father of the petitioners 1 to 3, M. Rami Reddy, and accordingly requested for dividing the site of 9000 square feet allotted to him on lease basis between him and the father of the petitioners 1 to 3. The TTD readily obliged and passed Resolution No. 662 dated 18/19-11-1992 permitting the fourth petitioner and the father of the petitioner 1 to 3 to share the land of 9,000 square feet of the site leased out to him. Thereafter, the proceedings dated 4-12-1992 have been issued by the Executive Officer of the TT
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
