Onteddu Krishna Reddy v. WRIT PETITION Nos.1769

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.1769, 1770, 1771, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1969 AND 2018 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: The land admeasuring about Acs.17.00 in Survey Nos.70/D of Koritipadu, Guntur is owned by Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, the third respondent herein. The land was in possession of hereditary/non-heritidaty Archakas for a long time. All the petitioners in these writ petitions allege that they obtained the land (details in tabular column below) from the Archakas and allegedly paying rent/makta to the third respondent temple. In 2001, the Executive Officer of the third respondent filed applications under Section 83 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) for eviction of the petitioners from the lands, which were in their possession. The petitioners entered appearance and opposed the applications, inter alia, contending that they are the tenants of the temple, that they are paying rents regularly and that they cannot be treated as encroachers for the purpose of Section 83 of the Act. The extent of land allegedly in possession of each of the petitioners is as follows. Sl.No. Writ Petition Number

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1769 of 2006 1770 of 2006 1771 of 2006 1957 of 2006 1958 of 2006 1959 of 2006 1960 of 2006 1962 of 2006 1967 of 2006 Petitioner’s nameS/s Extent of land allegedly in possession in S.No.70/D Acs.1.16 O.Krishna Reddy Acs.1.29 Y.Rami Reddy Acs.1.16 O.Obul Reddy Acs.1.16 O.Govinda Reddy Acs.0.64 O.Narayana Reddy Acs.0.65 V.Nagi Reddy Acs.2.25 O.Janardhana Reddy O.Suryanarayana Reddy Acs.1.16 Acs.2.25 O.Srinivasa Reddy O.A.No. before Dy. Commissioner, Guntur 69 of 2001 70 of 2001 64 of 2001 65 of 2001 62 of 2001 67 of 2001 61 of 2001 60 of 2001 59 of 2001

10. 11. 12. 1968 of 2006 1969 of 2006 2018 of 2006 Acs.2.54 O.Sambi Reddy Acs.1.16 V.Mahalaxmamma Y.Mallikharjuna Reddy Acs.0.58 68 of 2001 66 of 2001 63 of 2001 The petitioners approached the Commissioner of Endowments, the second respondent herein, in February, 2005 seeking to compromise the issue relating to the eviction from land allegedly under the possession of each petitioner. The said applications were filed purportedly under sub Section (2) of Section 89 of the Act. The Commissioner of Endowments by proceedings in Rc.No.M1/5441/2005-7, dated 24.05.2005, directed to enter into compromise with each petitioner on payment of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) per acre to the extent of the land in possession of each of the applicant and register the land in question relinquishing the rights of the temple. It is the case of the petitioners that after the Commissioner passed orders under Section 89(2) of the Act, they were under the impression that the proceedings initiated by the first respondent under Section 83 of the Act were closed and therefore they did not appear before the first respondent after 22.01.2005. In spite of the same, the first respondent passed ex parte orders ignoring the orders of the Commissioner and ordered the petitioners to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the land to the third respondent temple. The various proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.59 to O.A.No.70 of 2001, dated 20.12.2005, are assailed in these writ petitions. As the background of these cases is the same and the contentions raised are similar, this common order shall dispose of all these writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, submits that the impugned order is passed without power or authority. According to the learned counsel, when once the Commissioner directed to compromise the matter with the tenants by passing order under Section 89(2) of the Act, it is not competent for the first respondent to proceed with the original applications under Section 83(1) of the Act. Secondly, he would urge that the petitioners did not appear before the first respondent as they were under the impression that the proceedings are dropped and the first respondent passed orders ex parte without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned counsel for the third respondent temple submit that Sections 89(1) and (2) of the Act have no application to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83 of the Act and therefore even if the Commissioner passed orders under Section 89(2) of the Act, the orders passed by the first respondent are not rendered illegal. They placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in M.Sarojini v Joint Commissioner, Endowments M.Z., III, Hyderabad. They further submit that the petitioners never brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner about making applications under Section 89(2) of the Act to the second respondent, or orders of the second respondent to compromise the matter. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court in W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, dated 07.06.2005, directed not to effect any sales of temple lands without the permission of the Court and that no compromise shall be effected under Section 89 of the Act until further orders of this Court. Therefore, they submit that the petitioners cannot get any benefit from the orders of the Commissioner. When the matter was heard yesterday, i.e., 02.02.2006, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed before this Court the entire file containing the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner leading to passing of the impugned orders in these writ petitions. The same would show that the petitioners engaged an Advocate and were regularly appearing before the first respondent till 22.01.2005. Thereafter, the matter was listed at least on three occasions. There was no representation for the petitioners and their counsel was also absent. By 22.01.2005, the matter was coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1 (Executive Officer of third respondent temple), as the counsel for the petitioner did not appear, first respondent treated cross-examination of P.W.1 as Nil and posted the matter for evidence on

03.12.2005. Even thereafter there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and therefore they were set ex parte and orders were passed on 20.12.2005 under Section 83(1) of the Act ordering the eviction of the petitioners. The matter came to be decided by the first respondent based on the evidence of P.W.1, who was not cross-examined. The petitioners were not, in that view of the matter, given proper and adequate opportunity to represent their cases that they are not the encroachers but they are the tenants. On this limited ground, this Court is of considered opinion that the matter may have to be enquired afresh by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the impugned orders in all these writ petitions. It shall be open to the petitioners to produce their evidence to show that they are not encroachers and the petitioners shall also be given an opportunity to cross examine P.W.1, if not already cross-examined by any of the petitioners. The first respondent is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, undertakes that all the petitioners shall cooperate for the disposal of the matter by first respondent within four weeks as ordered by this Court. Till then, there shall be status quo for a period of five weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J)

03.02.2006