The legal validity of a possessory agreement is contingent upon registration and stamp duty. The discretionary nature of Writ of Mandamus requires the petitioner to plead and prove a legal right for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“......to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of respondent No. 4 in not collecting the yearly rents from the petitioner in respect of the land adm Ac. 12.10 cents in R.S. No. 292/5 (old Survey No. 35) of Vempadu Agraharam Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District and threatening to evict the petitioner from the said land as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to collect the yearly rents from the petitioner in respect of the above said land and not to evict the petitioner from the above said land in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 12.10 cents in R.S. No. 292/5 of Vempadu Agraharam. Petitioner is claiming the possession by virtue of possessory agreement of sale dated 10.12.2014, executed by one Maganti Satyanarayana. The total extent of land in S. No. 292/5 (old S. No. 35) is Ac. 2539-00 cents. Numbers of farmers are in possession of the land. Disputes arose in between some farmers and 4th respondent Temple. Matter went upto Apex Court. A compromise order was passed. About five years back, officials of Endowment Department and Revenue Department conducted joint survey and recorded the names of persons in possession. Land is prohibited from registration. However, the executive Officer of the 4th respondent Temple is recognizing sales under unregistered agreements and collecting rents from them as per the judgement of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2541/1972.

3. One Late Chalasani Kali Mardhana Rao, Chalasani Ramadevi and others purchased lands from one Potluri Ramaswamy under unregistered possessory agreements of sale. The Executive Officer of the respondent No. 4-Temple is collecting land rents from the said persons, recognising their possession. Petitioner has been requesting respondent No. 4 to collect the land rent from him and made representation on 15.04.2023. Since the said representation was not considered, the above writ petition is filed.

4. Respondent No. 4 filed the counter affidavit, wherein, it was contended that respondent No. 4-Temple is classified under Section 6(a) of Act 30 of 1987 and is under the administrative control of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajamahendravaram. Temple is being managed by the Executive Officer. Respondent No. 4-Temple is having an extent of Ac. 3409.00 cents. Respondent No. 4-Temple conducted auction for lease hold rights for an extent of Ac. 52.77 cents. Regarding the remaining extent of Ac. 3356.23 cents, it was surveyed in the year 2003. As per the survey report, an extent of Ac. 2789.62 cents was in illegal possession of 1,038 enjoyers. The remaining extent of Ac. 566.61 cents consists of roads, paths, donkas, quarries, Ramileru and N.S. Canal etc.

5. The Assistant Settlement Officer declared Vempadu Agraharam Village in Nuzivid Mandal as Inam Village and the temple as Inamdar. Smt. Gadde Sasirekhamma, Sri Cherukuri Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Potluri Lakshmana Swamy obtained permanent pattas and leases of an extent of Ac. 1002.50 cents from the then Hereditary Trustee and have filed appeal No. 237 of 1950 before the Appellate Tribunal, Vijayanagaram and the same was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, Nuzvid and it was renumbered as A.S. No. 289 of 1953. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and dismissed the appeal on 07.08.1953. One Potluri Lakshmana Swamy filed L.P.A. No. 263 of 1968 and the same was allowed on 19.08.1971, by holding that Vempadu is an Estate Village. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Cour