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

2022 Supreme(AP) 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Prashant Kumar Mishra, D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, JJ.
The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., - Appellant
Versus
Kandimalla Sairam & Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2022 (Proceedings through Physical Mode)
Decided On : 20-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:D.V. Sasidhar, Advocate

Point of Law : Once pari materia provisions of old Act have been invoked and litigation has eventually been decided in favour of legal heirs of founder, it is wholly improper and unfair to direct writ petitioner again to take recourse to same exercise.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21 and 300-A - Registration Act, 1908 – 22 A(1)(c) - Endowments Act, 1966 – Section 77 - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 6(a), 6(c) – Appeal - Equality before Law - Possession of land - Court appeal has been preferred against order passed by learned single Judge allowing , declaring Memo as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently setting aside same and directing 2nd respondent therein (appellant) to delete properties of writ petitioner (respondent No.1) from prohibitory property list under Section (A)(1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908 - Once pari materia provisions of old Act have been invoked and litigation has eventually been decided in favour of legal heirs of founder, it is wholly improper and unfair to direct writ petitioner again to take recourse to same exercise. (Para 7).

Findings of Court – Section 160 of Act 30 of 1987 would come to rescue of the Endowment authorities when list is prepared for first time, but present is a case where same list was challenged by legal heirs of founder, invoking Section 77 of Endowments Act, 1966 - Therefore, even for purposes of Section 160 read with Section 6 of Act 30 of 1987, previous judgment of the Court, which emanated from exercise of power under Section 77 of Endowments Act, 1966, would stop authorities in challenging same in independent proceedings - Even if writ petitioner is relegated to invoke Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987, judgment would bind Endowments Tribunal and end result would be same - When once Civil Court having declared that provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966, are not applicable to subject property and proceedings initiated by Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur are without jurisdiction, it will be an exercise in futility to reopen matter.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.6370 of 2021, declaring Memo No.M2/19021(35)/30/2019 dated 25.02.2021 as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently setting aside the same and directing the 2nd respondent therein (appellant) to delete the properties of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1) from the prohibitory property list under Section (A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Registration Act”).

2. A private choultry, viz. Pulladigunta Satram, Pulladigunta Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, was constructed in the year 1820 by one Sri Katrapati Seshachalam, ancestor of Katrapati Anasuyamma, Katrapati Rama Rao and Katrapati Balakrishnamohan in Sy.No.445 of Pulladigunta Village and own property in Sy.No.14 and other survey numbers of Vatticherukuru Village and Mandal, Guntur District. In the year 1840, Sri Raja Jaganna Manikya Rao, the Zamindar of Raichur made a rent-free personal grant of about Ac.40.00 cents of dry land as reward to Sri Katrapati Seshachalam, the founder of the choultry to service and run the choultry from his personal funds. Since the time of grant, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime and the same was personal inam, which is not charitable and alienable. During his lifetime, Katrapati Vasudeva Parabrahmam maintained the choultry, thereafter Katrapati Sesha Chalapathi Rao maintained it and subsequently, legal heirs are maintaining the same.

3. When the Endowments Department proposed to interfere with the possession of the land of the choultry of the Katrapati family, the legal heirs of the founder Sri Katrapati Seshachalam preferred O.A.No.56 of 1977 under Section 77 (present Section 87 as per the Endowments Act, 1987) of the Endowments Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the 1966 Act’) before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, for declaration that the choultry is a private choultry and the land admeasuring Ac.14.14 cents in Sy.No.14 and 445 of Pulladigunta Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, is not a charitable endowment. The O.A. was dismissed on 20.08.1979. However, the legal heirs of the founder preferred O.S.No.60 of 1979 before the District Judge, Guntur, which was dismissed on 19.08.1983 against which they preferred A.S.No.1718 of 1989 in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The said appeal was allowed on 17.11.1995 by setting aside the judgment dated 19.08.1983 of the District Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.60 of 1979. The said judgment has attained finality as no S.L.P. was preferred by the defendants, including the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. The writ petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of the subject property involved in A.S.No.1718 of 1989 in Sy.No.14 of Vatticherukuru Village and Mandal, Guntur District from Katrapati Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, legal heir of the founder Sri Katrapati Seshachalam, through registered sale deed No.2981 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015. When the writ petitioner wanted to alienate the property, it was informed that the property is kept under prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act.

4. The writ petitioner preferred the writ petition challenging the inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties, inter alia, contending that the 2nd respondent issued Memo No.M2/19021(35)/30/2019 dated 25.02.2021, rejecting his application seeking deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties, on the ground that the choultry was published under Section 6(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘Act 30 of 1987’), as such, the choultry is a public choultry along with its properties and the publication dated 12.11.1987 under Act 30 of 1987 was done in accordance with law, which can be c

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