The High Court · 2025

1. Nakirekanti Mohan Goud, S/o.Rajaiah, aged about 38 I s, Occ: Agriculture, 2. Sri Mallikharjuna Swamy Devastanam, lnavole Village. \ Vardhannapet R/o lnavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal t strict Mandal, Warangal District (Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party) Rer; rondents/petitioners Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that i the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, th. High court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension order dt. o'.r )gl2o11 granteb in CMA.MP.no.1672 of 2011 in CMA(SR).No. 3332T of 2Oj1 n CMA N; 1163 of 201 1 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I a THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No.1163 OF 2O11 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaleous appeal is Iiled aggrieved by the order dated 05.O6.2010 in O.A.No. lT of 20lO passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, WarangaJ Zone.

2. Heard Mr. M. Vidr a Sagzir, learncd counsel for the appellant, and Mr. tl. Ra.;esh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents.

3. The appellant herein is respondent and respondents are applicants before the Commissioner. O.A.No .lZ of 20lO came to be filed by applicants on the ground that applicant No.2 i.e., Sri Mallikarjuna Su':rnty Devastanam, Inavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal, is the owner and possessor of landed property to an extent of Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.935/A situated at Inavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District. The said land is entered in Column No.7 of the Approved Propert5z Register prepared under Section 43 ol thc Andhra Pradesh 2 JAK, J t- \!.1 \o l16l )nl I \ Charitable and Hindu Religious Instit rtions and Endor,r,ments Act 30 of 1987 (Act No.30 of 1!,r ,7). Pattadar passbook is also issued in favour of the Templr

4. It is alleged that appellant/respondent (Nakirckanti Mohal Goud) occupied land to an extent of 5 sq. yards and constructed back portion of house in thl said 15 sq vards of land. Notices were issued on 25.( 6.2009 and

04.O2.2OlO. The appellant/respondent befor,r the Deputy Commissioner failed to vacatc the premises, t : such, he is said to be in unauthorized occupation of the land to an extent of 15 sq. yards belonging to the Teml; e. Learned Deput5r Commissioner, after hearing the argu r rents of the respondents/ applicants arrd considering tht' documents i.e., Register maintained under Section 43 of the Act, pattadar passbooks, copies of notices, c pined that appellant/ respondent was in unauthorized oc,' rpation and directed him to remove the encroachment rnd deliver possession belonging to the Temple within 1l davs from the date of receipt of the order, dated 05.06.201 O. It is this -) JAK, J C.,VA)to.tt63 20 n order which is under challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for appellant/ respondent submitted that Temple is not the or.r,ner of the property and invited the attention of this Court to the document at page No.2l and contended that by virtue of gift settlement deed dated

13.12.2OO7 , the appellant/ respondenr is the owner of the property. It is further submitted that no notice was served before order dated 05.06.2010, u.as 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 that u,hen substitute service is directed, it is imperative that substitute service is published in a widely circulated newspaper in vernmtlar ianguage. It is further averred that praja Teerpu is not a widely circulated newspaper and that the appellant/ respondent, being resident of Inavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District, did not have access to the newspaper. Hence, it is decmed that service 4 .I IK J < .t|,1 lo I I()l :A1l is not a-ffected. It is pointed out that the order of the \ Deputy Commissioner is an ex parte order a r I in violation of principles of natural justice (without thert: being noticc) holding thc appellant as encroacher/unauth c r zed occupier of the land to an extent of 15 sq. yards in Srl- ev No.935/A is not proper.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the ,rder of the Deputy Commissioner is not a valid order iln I is liable to be set aside for want of adherence to principi:s of natural J UStlce.

8. On the other hand, learned Governmr:rr Pleader lor Endowments Department appearing for respondents contended that notices were served on a tpellant on

25.06.2009 and O4.O2.2O10. That the appel i nt farled to respond to the said notices, did not vacate the lemple land encroached even aJter several demands. lt is further submitted that the extent of land under o() upation b-\r appellarrt is for the Temple for Jathara. Continuous unauthorized occupation is not backed b-t arly lease, approval orders of the competent authoritv hence, the \ \ 5 J1K, J C Lt A.tio.l163 201I appeliant is an encroacher as defined under Section g3 of the Act 3O of i987. It is submitted that as notices dated

25.06.2OO9 and 04.O2.2O10 w,ere served on appellant, the contention raised that no notices were served cannot be sustained. It is lastly 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 land to an extent of 15 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.l7 guntas in Survey No.935/A situated at Inavole Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District, is the property of the deity i.e., Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam entered in Column \o,7, of the approved property register prepared under Section 43 of the Act, 1987. A pattadar passbook is issued in lavour of 6 JAI: J t il A No I163 ;olI the Temple. The expression 'encroacher'as iefined under \ Section 83 of the Act is as follows: "83. Encroachments by persons on la.ncl ;r burlding belonging to charitable or religious rr: itution or endowrnent and the eviction of encroachcrs. (I) Whcre the Assistant Commissio I :r har ing jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a conr laint macie by the trustee has reason to believe that an..pcrson has encroached upon (hereinafter in this Chaptrr referred to as cncroacher') any land, building, talk, ri't J , spring or water-course or any space belonging to the i: jtitution or endo\\,Tnent, wherever situated or deenr rl as an cncroachcr under any of the provisions of tl is Act, the Assist an t Com.missioner shall report the f I :1 togcthcr witlt relcvant patticulars to the [trndowment; Tril;unal] [Sul)stitutcd 'Deputy Commissioner' by Ac No. 33 ol 2OO7 , dated I 1l2.2OO7l having jurisdictic,r over thc division in which the institution or enrl wmcnt is sitr r a ted. Explanation. - For the purpose of this C aptcr th(l expression encroacher' sha_ll mean aly 1,r rson who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space arrd deemed to include any person who is in occu; : tion of th<: land or building or space without the appr < val of thr. competent authority sanctioning lease or rr ( rtgagc, or licence eLnd also a person who continues to rer: ain in tht' lald or building or space after the expiry or rmination or canccllation of the lease, mortgage or licenc: in rr:spect r her(.of graxled lo him or it. (2J Whcre, on a perusal of the report recei under sub- sectron (1), the [EndowmenLs lsubstituted'Deputy Commissioner' by Acr 2OO7 , daLed ).1.12.2OO7.]1finds that there is :r r: case oI encroachmenl, Iirl ISubstituted 'hc b-v , ot 2OO7, dated 11.12.20071 shall cause to be s r the encroacher a notice speci$ing the particr I encroachment and calling on him to show cau s certain date why an order requiring him to rt encroachment before the date specified in t should not be made. A copy of the notice shl senl to the trustee of the inslitution or rr conccrned. d by him 'lribunall Io. 33 of 'ima facic ct No. 33 vecl upon Lrs of the : beltrrc a nove the re notice I a.lso be dowment 7 ,11K, J Ctl .1 \o 116J )Alt (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, rf any, of the encroacher received during the period specihed i., th" notice referred to in sub section (2) and after conducting such enquiry as may be prescribed, the [Endowmcnts Tribunal] [ Substituted'Deputy Commissioner' by Act No. 33 of 2OO7, dated l1.I2.2OO7l is satished that there has been an encroachment, [itl [Substituted 'he' by Act No. 33 of2007, dated I l.t2.2OO7l may, by ordcr, rcquire the encroacher to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the land or building or space encroached upon to the trustee before the datc spccified in such ordcr. (5) The order of the [Endowmcnts Tribunal] [Substituted 'Deputy Commissioner' by Act No.33 of 2007, dated ll.l2.2OO7l under sub-section (4) shall be in writing and shall contain the grounds on which he has passed the order. (6) During the pendency of the proceedings, the [Endowments Tribuna_l] [Substituted 'Deputy Commissioner' by Act No. 33 of 2OO7, dated I t.I2_2OOTl shall order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specihed by [it] [Substituted 'him' by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated ll.l2.2OO7l in consideration o[ the usc and occupation of the properties in question in thc 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 ard 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 J,1K. J ( VA No I163 2011 \ No.27 of the record (referred by the Tribun rl) speaks of a notice datecl 25.06.2009 addressed to .i .c appellar-rt. Page No.9 is also a notice dated 04.02.20 1C addressed to the appellant. Panchanama was condu : ed bV the Executive Officer of Sri Mallikarjuna Swam1, I )evasthanam in the presence of Village Revenue Officer , Inavole, on 04.10.2010. In the panchanama, it is reco' led that the appellant \ /as undertaking construction, tI e Executive Officer of tl-re Temple, the Village Revenue C) I <:er and two witnesses hzrve attested the panchanama

12. It is reflected in the panchanarna that t re appellant Nakerakanti Mohan Goud and K. Mallaiah ref -rsed to take notice and further reflected that if the ext:nt of land pertains to Temple, they would return the er _ent of land with the constructed portion and requested no to stop the construction. It is also reflected that on ins _ructions of Tahsildar, the construction undertaken by N. I\ Iohan Goud and K. Ma-llaiah was stopped

13. In other w,ords, the panchanama cc I ducted on

04.O2.2OLO, u,hich is a part of the record, es., blishes the , 9 J,1T, J C..r{ A.no l16l l0l I fact that the appellant along with another was making unauthorized constructions (in an extent of 15 sq' yards (in case of N. Mohan Gound) which is properly pertaining to the Temple. The fact remains that appellant and another ,v\rere present at the time of panchanama and it is reflected in the panchanama that they requested not to stop the construction work. In the light of the fact that N. Mohan Goud and K. Mallaiah were present at the time of conducting panchanama, the contention that the appellant was not put on notice cannot be sustained' Learned Deputy Commissioner, after considering the Register of Temple, pattadar passbook and copies of notices' held as lo1lo*'s: "... After perusing the Sec.43 register of the temple I have come to the conclusion that the .espo.,dent has been continuing iir possession and cnjoyment of the petition mentioned property situated at Inavole (r.), Wardhannapet (M), Warangal Distr-ic^t' without any valid or legal authority As per Sect 46(3) of thc Act 30 of 1987, "it shall until the contrary ls established, be presumed that all the particulars entered in the register maintained under Sec 43 are genuine, a certihed copy of an entry in the register mai.rtained under Sec 43 shall be admissible in evidence in any cou rt.". Therefoie, I am fully satisfied that there is an cncroachment in respect of the land to an extent of l5 "q V-a= in Survey No 935/4, situated'at Inavole (v)' W'arifrannapet (M), Warangal District belongrng to the 2"d applicant temple as the respondent fetl within the l0 .JAK. J ( V A No.1 163 201I expression encroacher as dehned in the explir ation of Sec.83(1) of the Act 3O of 1987, and he has nl manner of right to continue in the OA mentiorr .d land belonging to the 2"d petitioner temple. ln the result, I order requiring Sri N:l Mohar-r Goud, s/o. Rajaiah, r/o.lnar r Wardhannapet (M), Warangal District, rcs hercin, to remove thc encroachment alr(l possession of the OA, mentioned land belongrr 2"d petitioncr temple, which is more sp, mentioned in the description of encr(,i appended to the order, to the Executivc Sri Malhkarjuna Su,arny Devastanam, In: r Waftlhannapet (M), Warangal District, withirr from the datc of receil;t o[ this order and in tlr, the ()A rs allowed." irekalti t" (.,), )ondcnt dclivcr g to the cihcally chment Ofhcer, rlc (v), 5) days result,

14. This Court, having perused the order o the Deputy Commissioner and the record, u,.hich clearly cri ablishes the fact that notices were issued or\ 22.O5.2O1C. 04.O2.2O1O and 25.06.2009, along with panchanama datec 04.O2.2OIO attested b1. tI-re Village Revenue Officer ancI others and panchanama conducted in the presence of L\. ) witnesses, is of the opinion that the appellant was ptr on notice Though a contention is raised that Prit a Theerpu Newspaper in which substitute notice is publi r red is not a widely circulated paper, the said contention I ; on sandy foundation as the applicant was aware of the >roceedings and in fact requested not to stop construction r,ork which is reflected from record. Appeal is devoid of mer ts \ u hK, J C.M.A No.l 163 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 Civii Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed i6. For reasons a-foresaid, this Court does not find any infirmity or itlegality, much less any perversit5r in the order of Commissioner. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed-

17. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 1S accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand ciosed SdA K.AMMAJI EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 ? 4 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal\. One CC to Sri M Vidyasagar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Gp For Arbitration, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] Two CD Copies \ \ I ABK/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 2010612025 ORDER CMA.No.l163 of 2011 DISMISSING THE CMAWITHOUT COSTS e-,lb \ 1E Sfl (J i9 JAN 2026 t t gl) z 6) .n a