IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Althi China Maraiah - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.16886 of 2016
Decided on : 28-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Writ petition challenging public auction of land - Petitioner claims possession based on Budhan Patta and alleges illegal auction without notice - Respondent denies possession and claims ownership - Court finds dispute over title falls under jurisdiction of Endowments Tribunal - Petitioner directed to approach Tribunal for redressal. (Paras 1, 18, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for disputes that fall under the jurisdiction of specialized tribunals - The petitioner must seek remedy through the Endowments Tribunal as per statutory provisions. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims possession of land based on a Budhan Patta granted in 1970, alleging illegal auction by the temple's Executive Officer without due process. The respondent contests this claim, asserting ownership and proper auction procedures.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the dispute regarding land ownership is within the jurisdiction of the Endowments Tribunal, and the petitioner has not pursued this remedy.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the legality of the auction process and the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute over land ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must seek redress through the Endowments Tribunal, as the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to matters that fall under specialized statutory frameworks.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to approach the Endowments Tribunal.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“….to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in conducting public auction for the land in Sy.No.261 to an extent of Ac.-186 cents situated at Jammunarayapuram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of the natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondent not to conduct auction / dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass…”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner claims to be in possession of the land in Sy.No.22/1 to an extent of Ac.1.86cents and the land originally belonged to one Sri. Krishna Shastri, who purchased the land in the year 1910 from one Latchamma. The said Krishna Shastri is pujari of the Respondent No.5 temple and who in turn granted a Budhan Patta in favour of the petitioner on 24.02.1970. Since then, the Petitioner claims to have been in possession of the above said land, paying rents to Respondent No.5 for the past 30 years, cultivating the land by raising mango thopes and eking out his livelihood from doing agriculture in the above said land. It is stated that the aforementioned temple is a private temple and there was a dispute among its trustees. The Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.5, after being appointed as Executive Officer, announced a public auction for the above said land by a tom tom on 24.05.2016, to be held on 30.05.2016. The action of the Respondent No.5 conducting public auction without any enquiry, without issuing notice, and without following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, is illegal and arbitrary. Questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
3. This Court, vide order dated, has granted interim direction as under:
“….Post on 6.6.2016.
Meanwhile, there shall be status quo with regard to the possession of the land in Sy No.26-1 to an extent of Ac 1.86 cents situated at Jammu Narayanapuram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.”
4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 5. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that the temple has the ownership of mango thope measuring Ac. 2.00 cts in Sy.No.22/3D(old) citing U/Sec. 25 of Act, 1955 and the same was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department 14.03.1957. As per Sec. 46(3) of Act 30/87 all entries made in the statutory register are genuine unless contrary is proved. Further the temple was registered U/Sec. 43 of Act 30/87 and the same was approved by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department vide Registration No.89, dated: 17.05.1996. This mango garden was put to public auction and the income derived from the produce is utilized for the daily rituals of the deity. It is further stated that the mango garden was given to the Petitioner by a bhoodanpatta dated 24.02.1970 is false, concocted and made for the sake of the writ petition. It is further stated that initially the temple was managed by the managing trustees and the present single trustee is appointed in the year 2016. Respondent No.5 further stated upon taking the charge and verifying the records, the single trustee has derived that the income from mango garden's produce, which was to be utilized for the daily rituals through public auction, was not done all these years. As such, the single trustee after obtaining the permission from Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vizianagaram on 19.05.2016 has issued auction notification dated 19.05.2016 for conducting public auction of the produce of the mango thope on 30.05.2016 for a period of three years from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019. While
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for disputes that fall under the jurisdiction of specialized tribunals, necessitating petitioners to seek remedies through the appropriate statut....
Disputes regarding title over land belonging to charitable institutions must be addressed by the Endowments Tribunal, making writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable.
Ownership disputes regarding endowment property should be resolved by the Endowments Tribunal, not through writ proceedings under Article 226.
The High Court cannot entertain writ petitions related to land disputes already being adjudicated in specialized tribunals, directing parties to follow appropriate legal channels for resolution.
Ownership disputes regarding lands belonging to religious institutions must be resolved through the Endowments Tribunal, making writ petitions under Article 226 inappropriate.
Without valid lease, mortgage, or license, continued possession of the property would render the person an encroacher under Sec. 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions a....
The Executive Officer’s action against encroachers on temple property was within jurisdiction under the Endowments Act, with disputes over land title to be determined by the Endowment Tribunal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.