The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Mallikharluna Swamy Devastanam, lnavole Mllage, Wardannapet Mandal, Warangal Diskict. [R2 is not a necessary Party] ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circL nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rtay be pleased to vacate the interim suspension Order dated 02-09-2011 gran| d in CMA MP No. 1673 of 201 1 in CMA SR No. 33334/201 1 in CMA No. 1 162/2 1 1 in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M. Vidya Sagar Counsel forthe Respondents: Mr. H. Rajesh Kumar, GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT +.il+EnEZ THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1162 OF 2O11 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is hled aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.201O in O.A.No.16 of 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, WarangaT Zone'

2. Heard Mr. M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. H. Rajesh Kumar, learned Governrnent Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents'

3. The appellant herein is respondent and respondents are applicants before the Commissioner. O.A.No'16 of 2010 came to be filed by applicants on the ground that applicant No.2 i.e., Sri Mallikar.luna Su'amy Devastanam, Inavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal, is the owner and possessor of landed property to an extent of Acs'4'17 guntas in Surve-r' No.935/A situated at Inavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District. The said land is entered in Column No.7 of the Approved Property Register prepared under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh ) .1,1K, J C Ll.1 \'o I 14: )0t l Charitable and Hindu Religious Insti.r r[ions and Endowments Act 30 of IggZ (Act No.30 ot 19{Zl. pattadar passbook is also issued in favour of the Templ:

4. It is alleged that appellant/responde r r (Koyyada Mallaiah) occupied land to an extent of 3g sc. yards and constructed back portion of house in the said ig sq. yards of land. Notices were issued on 2S.O) 2OOg and 04.O2.2OlO. The appellant/respondent beforc the Deputy Commissioner failed to vacate the premises, as such, he is said to be in unautl-rorLed occupation of tht: land to an extent of 38 sq. yards belonging to the Templ ), Learned Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the argurr e.nts of the respondents / applicants and considering the clocuments t.e., Register maintained under Section 43 r f. the Act, pattadar passbooks, copies of notices, clined that appellant/respondent was in unauthorizcd occ _ patron and directed him to remove the encroachment e nd deliver possession belonging to the Temple within I f , cla1.s from the date of receipt of the order, dated 05.06.20 l( . Ir is this 3 JAK, J ('MA.No.l162 201I order which is under challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. l,earned counsel for appellant/respondent submitted that Tempte is not the owner of the property and invited the attention of this Court to the document at page No.21 and contended that by virtue of gift settlement deed dated

13.L2.2OO7, the appellant/respondent is the owner of the property. It is further submitted that no notice was served before order dated 05.06.2010 was passed. It is also submitted that substitute service was in a local paper called "Praja Theerpu", which is not a widely circulated newsPaper.

6. It is submitted lhat u'hen subsl-itute service is is imperative that substitute service directed, it is published in a widely circulated newspaper in vernacular tanguage. It is further averred that Praja Teerpu is not a widely circulated ne\trspaper and that the appellant/ lnavole Village' respondent, being resident o[ Wardhannapet Mandat, Warangal District, did not have access to the newspape'r-. Hence , it is deemed that service 4 J1K .J '.M.4 \o ll62 )ttll is not affected. It is pointed out that the c r der of the Deputy Commissioner is an ex parte order and n violation of principles of natural justice (without there b,.ing notice) holding the appellant as encroacher/ ur authorized occupier of the land to an extent of 38 sq. yar<l; in Survey No.935/A is not proper.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the cr ler o[ the Deputy Commissioner is not a valid order an<[ is liable to be set aside for want of adherence to principlr,r of natural Justrce.

8. On the other hand, learned Government pteader lor Endowments Department appearing for r :spondents contended that notices were served on ap pellant on

25.06.2009 and 04.02.2010. That the appeltrr rr failed to respond to the said notices, did not vacate the'emple land encroached even after several demands. tr is further submitted that the extent of land under occ:pation b,r appellant is for the Temple for Jathara. lontinuous unauthorized occupation is not backed by an\r lease, approval orders of the competent authoritl., trence, the ra*-a''ata*Y 5 JAK, J C M.A No I162 201I appellant is an encroacher as defined under Section g3 of the Act 30 of 1987. It is submitted that as notices dated

25.06.2009 and 04.02.2010 were served on appellant, the contention raised that no notices were served cannot be sustained. It is lasfly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

10. Dispute is with regard to unauthorized occupation of Iand to an extent of 38 sq. yards in Survey No.935/A, claimed by the Temple i.e., respondent No.2. It is the case of the Temple that the owner and possessor of property to an extent of Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.935/A situated at Inavole Village, Wardhalnapet Mandal, Warangal District, is the property of the deity i.e., Sri Mauikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, entered in Column No.7 of the approved property register prepared under Section 43 of the Act, 1987. A pattadar passbook is issued in favour of 6 ,JlK J C.M,t..\o Il 20tt the Temple. The expression .encroacher, as clr 'fined under Section 83 of the Act is as follows: -institutlon "83. Encroachments by persons on land cr belonging to charitable or religious instir endowment and the eviction of encrJachers. (1) Where the Assistant Commissioncr jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a comp. by the trustee has reason to believe that any 1, encroached upon (hereinafter in this Chapter r as encroacher,) any land, buitding, tank, well water-course or .rny space belonging to the inst cndowment, wherever situated -or deeme,i encroacher under any of the provisions of thrs Assistant Commissioner sha.li report the fact with relevant particulars to the [bndovrmenis [Substituted ,Deputy Commissioner, bv Act \ 2ooz, dated tt.t2.2oo7l having juriJdiction division in which the o. ..rdo n situated. Explanation. - For the purpose of this Cha expression encroacher, shall mean any pet.r unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or ,; deemed to include any person who is in ocJupari land or building or space without th. "p;;",, competent authority salctioning lease oi mor.t Iicencc and also a person who colntinues to rem: land or building or space after the o. i"., or cancellation of the lease, mortgage o. Ii.e.r". ,, thereof granted to him or it. (2) . Where, on a perusal of the report receivel under. sub. secrion (l), the [Eniowments i lti_ubstlruted 'Dcputy Commissioner' by Act trr 2O07, dared tI._I2.2OOZ.l frnds that theie is a pri casc of encroachment, [it] [Substituted ,he, by A: oI 2OO7. dared i l.L2.2OOZ\ shall cause to be"serr the encroacher a notice speci$,ing the particular encroachment and calling on him to show cause certain date why an ordcr requiring him to rerr encroachmcnt before the date specified in th< should not bc made. A copy of the notice shJ sent to the trustce of the institution or enrl concerned. "*pr.y building ution or having int made rson has 'ferred to ;pring or tution or as an Act, the together lribunall r. 33 of rver the ment is lter the on who race and xr of the I of the lage, or n in thc rination respect by him libunall .33of na facie No.33 ,d upon ; of the reforc a rve the notice llso be 'wment 7 JAK, J C M.A.No.ll62 201I (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed. (41 where after considering the objections, if any, of the encroacher received during the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) and after conducting such enquiry as may be prescribed, the [Endowments Tribunall I Substituted 'Deputy Commissioner' by Act No. 33 of 2OO7 , dated ll.l2.2o07l is satisfied that there has been an encroachment, [it] [Substituted 'he' by Act No. 33 of 2OO7 , dated l1.l2.2oo7l may, by order, require the encroacher to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the land or building or space encroached upon to the trustee before the date specified in such order. (5) The order of the [Endowments Tribuna-ll [Substituted 'Deputy Commissioner' by Act No- 33 of 2OO7, dated lL.12.2OO7l under sub-section (4| shall be in writing arrd shall contain the grounds on which he has passed the order. (6) During the pendency of the proceedings, the [Endowments Tribunal] lsubstituted 'Deputy Commissioner' by Act No. 33 of 2OO7, dated. ll.l2.2oo7l shall order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specified by [it] [Substituted 'him' by Act No. 33 o[ 2OO7 , dated- ll.l2.2OO7l in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question in the manner prescribed." I 1. Whether a notice is served by the Department or not is the question. Court directed the learned Government Pleader for the Endowments Department to produce the record. A photocopy of the original record and the photocopies of paper 'Praja Theerpu' (substitute servlce affected) are produced before this Court. This Court perused the record presented to the Tribunal too. At page 8 JAK, J C M.A No.1l62 20ll No.27 of the record (referred by the Tribunal) r ,peaks of a notice dated 25.06.2OO9 addressed to the app,: lant. Page No.9 is also a notice dated 04.02.2010 addrt:r rsed to the appellant. Panchanama was conducted by tlt Executive Officer of Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthar am in the presence of Village Revenue Officer, Ir avole, or1

04.10.2010. In the panchanama, it is recorde d that the appellant was undertaking construction, Exec.t tive Officer of the Temple, the Village Revenue Office r and tvgo witnesses have attested the panchanama.

12. It is reflected in the panchanama that ttr: appellant K. Mallaiah and Nakerakanti Mohan Goud refrr;ed to take notice and further reflected that if the extr: rt of land pertains to Temple, they would return the exrr nt of land with the constructed portion and requested nol -o stop the construction. It is also reflected that on insl-l uctions of Tahsildar, the construction undertaken by K. Ntr Lllaiah and N. Mohan Goud was stopped

13. [n other words, the panchanama coru lucted on

04.O2.2O1O, which is a part-of..the record este,l rlishes the FiFit */ rI7 9 JAK, J C M .1 No I162 201I lact that the appellart along with another was making unauthorized constructions (in an extent of 38 sq. yards (in case of Mallaiah) which is proPerly pertaining to the Temple. The fact remains that appellant and another were present at the time of panchanama and it is reflected in the panchanama that they requested not to stop the construction work. In the tight of the fact that K. Mallaiah and N. Mohan Goud were present at the time of conducting panchanama, the contention ttrat the appellant was not put on notice cannot be sustained. karned Depufy Commissioner, after considering the Register of Temple, pattadar passbook and copies of notices, held as follows: ". .. After perusing the Sec.43 register of the temple t have come to the conclusion that the respon<lent has been continuing in posscssion ancl enjoyment of the petition mentioned property situated at lnavolc (v), Wardhannapet (M), Warangal District, without any valid or legal authority. As per Sect.46(3) o[ the Act 3O of 1987, "it shalt until the contrary is estabtished, be presumed tha! all the particulars entered in the register maintairied under Sec.43 are genuine, a certihed copy of an entry in the register maintained under Sec.43 shall be admissible in evidence in any court.". Therefore, I am futly satisfred that there is art encroachment in respect of the land to an extent o[ 38 sq. yards in Survey No.935/A, situated at Inavole (v), Wardhannapet (M), Warangal District belonging to the 2"d applicant temple as the respondent fell within the expression encroacher as dehned in the explanation of Sec.83( I) of the Act 3O of 1987, and he has no manner l0 JAK. J C.lta A No I t62 201 I . right to continue in the OA mention: I land belonging to the 2nd petitioner temple. In the result. I order requiring Sri t cweda Mallaiah, s/o.Komuraiah, ";r;1il;1"',rr.{u), Wardhannaper (M). warangal nilt ilt,*'i""r roa"rrt . to remove the encroachment and deliver herein, possession of thc oA. menlioned r."a--u"f.isi, 1;'L. '.... '"t 3l_.L.,,,,:"". rempte, rvhich i" ,1 ri"""rv mentroned in the des 'cnptron of encroe < hment appended to the order .91 u.iriro,"" s*lili, :s.*.ff:"Hl,J lfi;i; wardhan n apet (M ). war;sll or "il"i, J*rr, i,l i,i^ pt or ihi s [:%f ;" fl._:r.:ecei "Iit,, ".d.; ; ; ; ; til,'

14. This Court, having perused the order ot :he Deputy Commissioner and the record, which clearly esrr blishes the fact that notices were issued on 22.OS.2O]O, )4.02.2010 and 25.06.2009, arong rvirh panchanama dated )4.o2.2oro attested by thc Village Revenue Officer and .ffie15 6116 palchalama conducted in the presence of two lrdtnesses, is of the opinion that thc appcllant was put on notice. Though a contention is raised that praj a Theerpu Newspaper in which substitute notice is publish :d is not a widely circulated paper, the said contention tr; on sandy foundation as the applicant rgas a\.,are of the p: oceedings and in fact requested not to stop construction rv lrk which is reflected from record Appeal is devoid of merit ; F*Ez JAK, J C.M.A.N,.l162 201I

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. On this ground too, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16. For reasons aforesaid, this Court does not lind any inftrmity or iltegality, much less any perversity, in the order of Commissioner. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

17. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal IS accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. P. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 4 Kam,/sa The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments at One CC to Mr. M. Vidya Sagar, Advocate [OP Two CCs to GP FOR ARBITRATION , High Court at Hyderabad. {OUTI Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER l. {with recordsl r the State of Telangana HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.1162 of 2011 . , aE SI,r rL)( o lorrf- \i'a'$. I.x ) :.r\A ,nlt .P c)\ .r- I rpArctrc9 -.-...<., DISMISSING OF THE CMA p) orlg-a b+