Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Janjanam Venkateswara Rao vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 June, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATIHON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APEPAL No.970 of 2023Between:Janjanam Venkateswara Rao,S/o.Kanakaiah, aged about 80 years,Occ:Weaver, D.No.5-4, Grandhalayapet,Near Ghat Road, Arch Gate,Opp. Sri Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy Temple,Mangalagiri Town and Mandal,Guntur District. ...Appellant VersusThe Assistant Commissioner,Endowments Department,Guntur, Guntur District and 2 others. ...RespondentsCounsel for the Appellant : Sri E. Sambasiva PrasadCounsel for respondents 1 & 3 : G.P for EndowmentsStanding Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt.P. Padmavathi JUDGMENT
Dt: 25.06.2024
(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, 2 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.970 of 2023
appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Smt. P. Padmavathi learned
Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The appellant herein occupied about 350 sq.yards of
land belonging to the 2nd respondent-temple. Apart from him, about
50 other persons had occupied neighbouring pieces of land. In all,
about Ac.15.38 cents of land was occupied unauthorisedly. These
persons formed a Society under the name and style of "Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Housing Society" and took steps for regularising
their possession and ownership over the land by approaching the
Endowments Department. It appears that the Endowments
Department took up these applications and processed the same with
a recommendation to sell the land in favour of the encroachers at
the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.yard. While these negotiations were going
on, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.405 dated 04.07.2002
setting down general guidelines for regularisation of encroachments
in respect of urban properties of endowment institutions. After the
issuance of this G.O, the Society had addressed a letter to the
government, for alienation of the property to the persons in
occupation of the land at the rate of Rs.240/ - to Rs.300/- sq. yard.
At that stage, some of the affected parties approached this Court, by
way of W.P.No.21148 of 2002 in which an interim direction was 3 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.970 of 2023
granted at the stage of admission. This writ is said to be still
pending.
3. In a parallel proceeding, respondents 1 and 2 filed
O.A.No.147 of 2015 before the Andhra Pradesh Endowments
Tribunal, under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1982
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). This application was allowed
by the Tribunal, by an order dated 26.07.2022, directing eviction
of all the occupants, including the petitioner and for payment of
Rs.3,000/- per month towards damages for occupation of the land.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2022, the
appellant filed W.P.No.5860 of 2023 before this Court. The
contention of the appellant, in this writ petition, is that the
Endowments Department having accepted the proposal for
alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner, and having taken
steps for such alienation should not have initiated eviction
proceedings, by way of O.A.No.147 of 2015. The appellant would
further contend that no further steps could have been taken for
evicting the petitioner from the land in view of the letter of the
Endowment Commissioner dated 22.07.1999 according permission
to the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent-temple to sell away 4 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.970 of 2023
Ac.1.63 ¾ cents in favour of 37 encroachers at the rate of Rs.300/-
per sq.yard.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering these
submissions had held that in the absence of a valid alienation in
accordance with Section 83 of the Act, all persons in occupation of
endowment land would have to be treated as encroachers who are
liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The learned
Single Judge also held that the petitioner has not produced any
document to show that his possession over the land is an authorised
possession. Consequently, the learned Single Judge took the view
that the petitioner can only be treated as an encroacher on the land
and his possession over the land is not valid in law and the 2 nd
respondent would be entitled to take steps to evict the petitioner
from the land in his occupation.
6. It may also be noted that the learned Single Judge also
considered the effect of the order of stay granted by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11812 of 2005. The learned Single
Judge noticed that the interim order granted by the Division Bench
was a direction to the respondent authorities not to alienate any
endowment land except with prior permission and as such, would
not in any manner affect the disposal of the writ petition. 5
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.970 of 2023
7. The learned Single Judge after holding thus, dismissed
the writ petition, by way of an order dated 11.09.2023. Aggrieved
by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the
contentions raised before the learned Single Judge in the Writ
Petition. Section 83 of the Act, and more specifically the
explanation to Section 83 defines „encroacher‟ to mean any person
who unauthorisedly occupies any land or building or space of an
endowment institution. In the present case, there is no dispute as to
the fact that the appellant had occupied the land belonging to the
2nd respondent-temple without obtaining any authorisation from
any competent authority under the Act. In such circ*mstances, the
appellant can only be treated as an encroacher.
10. The contention of the appellant that the endowment
department had agreed for sale of the land to the appellant and
other encroachers due to which steps ought not to have been taken
for evicting the appellant. This argument cannot be accepted as the
appellant remains an encroacher till alienation has been completed
in accordance with law. In the present case, there is no such
alienation which has been completed.
6
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.970 of 2023
11. In the circ*mstances, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and this Writ
Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
RJS 7 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.970 of 2023
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APEPAL No.970 of 2023
(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Dt: 25.06.2024
RJS
