1992 Supreme(AP) 660

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.V.MARUTHI
Tallapakam Venkata Srinivasacharyulu (Died) - Appellant
Versus
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupathi, rep.by the Executive Officer - Respondent
Decided On : 12-23-92

The grant in question was not in favor of the T.T.D. but was a personal grant to the appellant's ancestor, Tallapaka Chinna Ayyavarlu, who was the original grantee from Sri Krishna Devaraya.

Headnote:

INAMS ABOLITION ACT - INAM LAND - POSSESSION - SERVICE INAM - INSTITUTIONAL INAM - ENFRANCHISEMENT - RYOTWARI PATTA - TITLE DEED - INAM FAIR REGISTER - REVISION - JURISDICTION - SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - MASTER AND SERVANT RELATIONSHIP - BURDEN OF SERVICE - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 76 OF THE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 - RELEVANCE.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose over the ownership of certain lands covered by Survey Nos. 679/2 and 645 situate at Tirumala village in Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District. The appellant, Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu, claimed to be the inamdar and sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams (T.T.D.) to pay compensation for wrongful deprivation of land in violation of the guaranteed right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The T.T.D., on the other hand, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, on the ground that the grant in question was in favor of Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple and, therefore, the patta granted in favor of the appellant was illegal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the grant in question was not in favor of the T.T.D. but was a personal grant to the appellant's ancestor, Tallapaka Chinna Ayyavarlu, who was the original grantee from Sri Krishna Devaraya. The court further held that the appellant and his brothers were in possession of the land on the relevant dates as inamdars and were, therefore, entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (the Inams Abolition Act). The court also held that the observations of the Commissioner in the revisional order that the inam was burdened with service were totally unwarranted and unsustainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the grant in question was in favor of the T.T.D. or the appellant's ancestor? 2. Whether the appellant and his brothers were in possession of the land on the relevant dates as inamdars? 3. Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the inam was burdened with service?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the grant in question was not in favor of the T.T.D. but was a personal grant to the appellant's ancestor, Tallapaka Chinna Ayyavarlu, who was the original grantee from Sri Krishna Devaraya. The court relied on the entries in the Inam Fair Register (I.F.R.) which showed that the inam was granted for "dharmadayam" which implies charitable purposes and that the original grantee was Tallapaka Chinna Ayyavarlu. The court also noted that the I.F.R. did not mention the T.T.D. or the name of the trustee of the temple as the grantee. 2. The court held that the appellant and his brothers were in possession of the land on the relevant dates as inamdars. The court relied on the finding of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar that the inam land in question is in ryotwari village and the admission of the T.T.D.'s counsel that the appellant and his brothers were in possession of the lands since 7-6-1933. The court also noted that the appellant and his brothers had been granted a ryotwari patta in respect of the land in question. 3. The court held that the Commissioner was not justified in holding that the inam was burdened with service. The court noted that there was no plea raised in that regard before the Commissioner and that the Commissioner had not even referred to any basis for making such an observation.

Final Decision: The court allowed both the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petition filed by the T.T.D. The court also directed the T.T.D. to pay compensation to the appellant and his brothers if a part or whole of the inam land in question had already been occupied by the T.T.D. for the purpose of the institution.