2000 Supreme(AP) 681

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
K.Susheela - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-07-00

Headnote:

Writ petition - Act 30 of 1987 - A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Endowments Act 30 of 1987 - Sec. 43 - Sec. 92 - Sec. 16- Sec. 17 - land case – property dispute - Petitioner in the instant writ petition impugns the proceedings on the file of the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone-III, directing the petitioner herein to show-cause as to why the legality, the propriety of the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Endowments Department, T. C. , declaring the petitioner herein as member of the founder family of, should not be examined -Petitioner herein was called upon to be present together with connected records and documents in connection with the proposed enquiry to be held on by the Regional Joint Commissioner -It is stated that the petitioner s husband was the devotee of - It is stated that with his own funds, the temple in question has been constructed by individual efforts - It is, however, stated that the temple has become public in character for the reason that the public have been allowed to have access for worship of the subject temple - It is also stated that the petitioner s husband undertook construction of several sub-shrines like Temple - Main temple and the sub-shrines constructed by were being managed with funds and a poojari has been appointed and his salary is also paid from out of the personal funds of the petitioner -Be that as it may, the subject institution was registered under - A certificate of registration was issued by the Asst. Commissioner, Endowments in - It is averred in the affidavit that the record itself would show that the subject institution was founded by the petitioner s husband and his name is recorded as founder in Register – Held, - IN the instant case, the Commissioner desired to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner recognising the petitioner herein as the member of the founder family of Temple - There are no rival claims as such. Strictly speaking, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, has not passed any order resolving any rival claim seeking an entry in the certificate of registration under Sec. 43 of the Act - There is no proceeding as such initiated by any person invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner by way of an application for resolving the dispute in relation to an entry or omission to make an entry in the register maintained of the Act - Only in such a case, the remedy under of the Act may not be available - Under those circumstances, court opinion that the Commissioner is entitled to exercise the revisional power under Sec. of the Act -Act says that every application to the Commissioner for the exercise of power under Section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates was received by the applicant. Evidently, the revisional application may have to be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved person - There is no limitation provided as such for exercising suo motu revisional power by the Commissioner - Limitation would apply only in case of revisional application by an aggrieved person and not when the power is sought to be exercised suo motu by the Commissioner - It is well settled that suo motu power of revision in respect of which no limitation is provided for by the statute is to be exercised within a reasonable period - What is reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case - In the instant case, there is no pleading whatsoever alleging that the Commissioner failed to exercise the revisional power within a reasonable period - On the other hand, it is contended that exercise of revisional power is barred by limitation - Therefore, this Court cannot go into the question as to whether the Commissioner exercised power within a reasonable period. Suffice it to hold that the period of limitation of days for preferring revision is not applicable in case of suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner - For all the aforesaid reasons, court do not find any merit in this writ petition - However, the Commissioner shall proceed further in the matter pursuant to the impugned notice in accordance with law and decide the matter on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order, as this Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case -Writ petition shall stand accordingly dismissed - No order as to costs - Petition dismissed.