Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 874
2009 (1) ALT 664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Mandala Penchalaiah and others — Appellant
Vs.
Superintendent of Police, Nellore District and others — Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15816 of 2007 and Batch
Decided on 15-10-2008.
Mr. K. Subrahmanya Reddy, Senior Counsel and Mr. S. Khader Mohiddin, Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 15816,19562 and 20720 of 2007.
G.P. for Home for the Respondents in W.P.No. 15816 of 2007.
G.P for Endowments for Respondent No.1, 3 to 5 in W.P.No. 19562 of 2007, NO.1 to 3 in W.P.No. 19572 and 20454 of 2007 and NO.1 to 4 in W.P.No. 20720 of 2007.
G.P. for Revenue for Respondent NO.6 and 7 in W.P.Nos. 19562 and 20720 of 2007 and No.1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 in W.P.No. 4115 of 2007.
Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, SC for Endowments, for Respondent NO.2 in W.P.No. 19562 of 2007, NO.4 in W.P.Nos. 19572 and 20454 of 2007, No. 5 in W.P.No. 20720 and NO.9 in W.P.No. 4115 of 2007.
Headnote:a) REVENUE LAWS - A.P. (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - Character of inam can not be claimed for the first time by the petitioners in a writ petition and seek a mandamus for issue for rytwori patta having failed to approach the competent authority under the Act to decide their claim for a long period of fifty years after the Act came into force.
b) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1966, Section 77 - Lands in question under the controller of the Hindu Religious Endowment Institution and later taken over by the Government.- Petitioner-tenants who accepted the claim of the linear decedents of the religious institution and were paying cist to them, can not claim independent right over the land.
c) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, Sections 82, 83 and 85- All tenancies of endowment lands terminated by virtue of operation of Section 82 - All such tenants can not seek protection of their possession and against their eviction through a writ.
d) POLICE AID - When possession of a property is disturbed by any intruder, the proper course of action for a party is to file a suit for injunction against the challengers and seek police aid for enforcement of the injunction.
e) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 : The question of issuing writ for directing the police to protect possession of the individuals will arise only where they approached the civil court for injunction and these injunction orders were not implemented or violated.
f) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, Section 85 :- Encroachment of endowment lands- Deputy Commissioner passing orders for removal of encroachments and resumption of the lands by the Assistant Commissioner, if necessary taking police help.- Writ petition challenging such an order is untenable. - The endowment lands are for the purpose of welfare of the community and their encroachment by unsocial elements is deplorable and the orders of Deputy Commissioner are commendable. - The petitioners are not without remedy.- They could have approached the authorities under the Act or approached the civil courts for enforcement of any of their rights. - Writ petition dismissed
In this batch of six writ petitions, claims of one form, or the other, are made in respect of different extents of land, owned by a religious endowment, by name, Seethanna Chalivendram (for short 'the Institution').
Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are as under:
One Sri Mallavarapu Seethanna was running a Chalivendram, near Venkatachalam village of Nellore District, to cater to the needs of the travelling public. An extent of AC.399.70 cents of Kanupuru Bit-1 was endowed to the Chalivendram. While the petitioners in W.P.No.20720 of 2007 state that the land was endowed by the erstwhile Nawabs of Arcot, according to the petitioners in W.P.No.19562 of 2007, the endowment was made by Karnataka Nawabs. The land in various bits is said to be under the enjoyment of the petitioners, and their ancestors. The revenue was being collected by Seethanna, and after his death, by his son, Mallavarapu Rama Rao. It is also pleaded that when Rama Rao stopped collecting revenue, the petitioners and others started paying the revenue to the Government.
3. Vide proceedings dated 14-11-1970, the Chalivendram was brought under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act'). Rama Rao challenged the taking over of the Institution by the Endowments Department, and filed OANo.53 of 1976 under Section 77 of the 1966 Act, before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. The O.A. was dismissed, and thereupon, Rama Rao filed O.S.No.6 of 1981 in the Court of District Judge, Nellore. The suit was also dismissed, and A.S.No.2133 of 1988 was filed before this Court. The appeal is said to have been dismissed for default, and the judgment in O.S.No.6 of 1981 has become final.
4. When the officials of the Endowments Department and the Executive Officer of the Institution initiated steps for eviction of the unauthorized occupants, O.S.Nos. 273 of 1988 and batch, were filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, by some of the occupants, for the relief of declaration, that they are the ryots of Venkatachalam Village, and are entitled to Kudivaram rights in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for. Through a common judgment dated 13-07-1998, the trial Court dismissed the suits holding that the plaintiffs in the suits are bound by the judgment in O.S.No.6 of 1981, filed by Sri Rama Rao. Some of the aggrieved persons are said to have filed appeals before this Court, being A.S.Nos.320 of 1999, and batch.
5. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.19562 and 20720 of 2007 are said to be the occupants and enjoyers of parts of the land, held by the Institution, or legal heirs of such occupants; whereas the petiti0ners in W.P.Nos.19572 and 20454 of 2007 are purchasers, either directly from the occupants, or their vendees. The grievance of the petitioners in these four writ petitions is, about the action of the Authorities of the Endowments Department and the Institution, trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands and structures in their possession.
6. The petitioners in W.P.No.15816 of 2007 are the same, as those in W.P.No.19562 of 2007. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Sub-Inspector of Police Venkatachalam Police Station, is refusing to take action against the unlawful activities of certain persons, who were trying to dispossess and interfere with the rights of the petitioners, over the land. W.P.No.4115 of 2008 is filed by some of the petitioners in the other writ petitions, challenging the proceedings dated 02-08-2007, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, in exercise of power under Section 85 of the Act 30 of 1987, directing eviction of the encroachers, over the land, belonging to the Institution.
7. The petitioners contend that valuable rights have accrued to them, on account of lon
