The absence of rules prescribing the manner of publication of notice or inquiry under Section 71(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 does not render the RDO's power to resume inam lands unenforceable.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub-Collector; Bodhan stating that survey No. 152 admeasuring Ac. 6-00 situated at Doulatapur village of Madnoor taluk has been alienated by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent. According to him the said land is a service inam land attached to Sri Chidanand Swamy and Venkateshwara and Joshigiri. He requested that the land should be resumed in favour of the petitioner, the Inamdar.

( 2 ) ON the basis of the said application, a show cause notice under Sec. 6 of Inam Atiyat Enquiry Act was issued to the respondents, who appeared and filed a counter. They denied that the said land is attached to Sri Chidanand Swamy and Venkateshwara temple. They relied upon a decision of the Munsif Magistrates Court, Yellareddy in that behalf. They also denied the allegation that the petitioner is the inamdar entitled to the possession of the said land.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the Sub-Collector framed three issues, viz. , 1. Whether the disputed land is the service inam land? 2. Whether the judgment, in O. S. 23/75 of Munsif Magistrates Court, operates as res judicata? 3. Whether the land can be resumed in favour of the petitioner?

( 4 ) ON issue No. 1 he found that"the land hearing Survey No. 152, area Ac. 6. 12 guntas, as per Muntaqab is service inam land and attached to Chidanand Swamy and Venkateshwara Temple. "

( 5 ) ON issue No. 2 he found that,"the Atiyat Court has the jurisdiction to enquire and take action, if there is any violation of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966. "

( 6 ) ON issue No. 3 he found the,"the petitioners request is liable to be rejected inasmuch as no rules have been framed as contemplated by S. 71 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966. "

( 7 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector dismissed the appeal agreeing with the Sub-Collector that, in the absence of rules being made, as contemplated by Section 71, the Sub-Collector was right in rejecting the petitioners application. Hence this Revision petition.

( 8 ) SECTION 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act provides for resumption of inam lands. It says that the Revenue Divisional Officer, may suo motu or on application of the trustee or of any persons having interest in the institution or endowment, authorised by the Commissioner, by order, resume the whole or any portion of any inam land referred to under Section 70, if the holder of inam has effected a transaction, which is null and void under Section 70.

( 9 ) SUB-SECTION (2) which is relevant for the present purpose reads as follows :"before passing an order under sub-sec. (1) the Revenue Divisional Officer, shall give notice to the trustee, to the Commissioner, to the holder of the inamland, to the person in possession of the inam land where he is not the holder thereof, and to alienee, if any, of the inam land and also publish a copy of the notice in such manner as may be prescribed, which publication shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to every other person likely to be affected by such order; and consider the objections, if any, after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed. "

( 10 ) SUB-SECTION (3) says that every order passed under sub-sec. (1) shall be communicated to each of the persons mentioned in sub-section (2) and also be published in the manner prescribed.

( 11 ) NOW the objection of the respondents is that no rules have been framed prescribing the manner of publication of a copy of the notice or prescribing the manner in which the inquiry should be held, as contemplated by sub-sec (2 ). In my opinion the ground upon which the petitioners application has been rejected is unsustainable.

( 12 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Dargah Committee v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 574, that merely beca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document