SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 22

2011(3) ALT 31
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
Gulf Oil Corporation Limited, (formerly Indian Detonators Ltd.,) (formerly IDL Chemicals Ltd.,) Formerly IDL Industries Ltd.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department & Others
WRIT PETITION No.24440 of 2010
Decided on: 20-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Laxma Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4, G.P. for Endowments, R5, M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Advocate.

Headnote:A) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS• AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, Section 83:- Where the lease of endowment land is granted to a company which has changed its name under the Companies Act, Assistant Commissioner issuing the notice to the petitioner cannot be found fault with the and the Tribunal has every jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction against the petitioner. Writ of prohibition is dismissed rejecting deficiencies in the show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner as no such objections were taken before the Tribunal and it had participated before it.

       B) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, Section 83 (1) – The power of Assistant Commissioner to report to the Endowment Tribunal of any land encroachments can be exercised only on his subjective satisfaction as to the existence of prima facie case regarding encroachment of the endowment land and he is not obliged to issue any notice with regard to the alleged encroachers. (Para 14)

       C) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, Section 83 (1) – Where the endowment land is leased out to a company and the name of the company is changed without the permission of the competent authority and contrary to the rules, the Assistant Commissioner can rightly report the encroachment to the Tribunal.

       D) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, Section 83 (1) – Writ of prohibition on the ground o lack of jurisdiction cannot be granted merely because of inadequate address in the show cause notice issued by the Tribunal.

Judgment

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, has filed this writ petition seeking a ruling on the threshold jurisdiction of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad in entertaining Original Application (O.A.) No.21 of 2008 filed by the 5th respondent, viz., Sri Udasin Mutt, seeking removal of the petitioner from encroachment of subject land under the provisions of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 33/2007) and to quash the proceedings in the said Original Application declaring the same as without jurisdiction. In substance and in effect, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of Writ of Prohibition.

2. The petitioner with the present name “Gulf Oil Corporation Limited” claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. According to the petitioner originally the company was incorporated as “Indian Detonators Limited on 20.04.1961 and the said name was changed w.e.f. 14.05.1974 as “IDL Chemicals Limited”, which was again changed as “IDL Industries Limited w.e.f. 31.10.1995. The name was again changed as “Gulf Oil Corporation Limited” w.e.f. 22.08.2002 and the said name has been certified in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1956.

3. The 5th respondent being the owner of large extent of land situated at Kukatpally village of Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, leased out an extent of Ac.540.30 gts., of land under registered lease deeds executed through the then Mutawalli in favour of M/s. Indian Detonators Limited / M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited.

The lease deeds are as follows:-

Sl.No.

Lease Deed No.

date Extent of land (Acs - Gts.)

1. 366/1964 23.07.1964 143-00

2. 166/1966 14.09.1966 257-19

3. 905/1969 21.03.1969 2-32

4. 1817/1978 20.04.1978 137-19

Total

540-30

The lease is for a period of 99 years from the respective dates of the lease deeds.

4. The 5th respondent through its present Mahant namely Arundas Udasin, made a complaint dated 24.12.2007 to the 4th respondent- Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P., alleging breach of conditions of lease and seeking eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 83 of Act 33/2007.

5. The breach of conditions alleged in the said complaint, are as follows.

1. No lease has been granted to the petitioner “Gulf Oil Corporation Limited., therefore the petitioner not being a lessee, is an encroacher, and even the change of name from “IDL/IDL Chemicals Limited to Gulf Oil Corporation Limited assuming to be correct, the lease deed having been entered into with IDL/IDL Chemicals Limited, the lease in the hands of the petitioner is invalid as the same is without prior approval and consent of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of A.P;

2. On account of lack of care on the part of the lessees an extent of Ac.20.00 gts., of land has been converted as graveyard and the said conversion of land as graveyard is a serious breach of conditions of lease.

3. The petitioner, though sought to justify its occupation of land in the guise of assuming a new name, is not recognized as a tenant by approval/sanction accorded by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, and therefore, the petitioner is an encroacher within the scope and definition of encroacher under the provisions of Act 33/2007.

4. The petitioner obtained a commercial loan from the State Bank of India by mortgaging the leasehold rights, thus creating encumbrance over the leased property.

5. The subject lease deeds dated 23.07.1964, 14.09.1966 and 21.03.1969 for a term exceeding six years are null and void unless such transaction is conducted with the prior sanction of the Government. No such prior sanction was obtained in respect of the subject lease deeds, and as such the said lease deeds do not confer any rights on the petitioner. In so far as subject lease deed dated 20.04.1978 despite prior sanction by the Government, the same was determined






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top