HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 17386 and 36309 of 2013 Date: 18.06.2014
W.P.No. 17386 of 2013
Between :
Raja Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Raja Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occu: Business, D.No.141, T.P.Aria, Tirupati town, Chittoor District and others.
and Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and others.
… Petitioner
W.P.No. 36309 of 2013
Between :
… Respondents P.Arjun S/o. Pagadala Krishnaiah, Aged 45 years, R/o.Door No.1-40/30, Rayalcheruvu Road, Opp:M.R.Palle P.S., Tirupati, Chittoor District.
… Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Regn) Department, rep.by its Prl.Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 17386 and 36309 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
In these two writ petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of Sub Registrar the request to furnish market value and to receive and process deeds of conveyance concerning properties in Survey No. 242/B and 242/B3 of Tirupati village, Tirupati urban mandal, Chittoor district.
W.P.No.17386 of 2013
2. Second petitioner is son of Smt A.Mogilamma. Petitioners 1,3 and 4 are subsequent purchasers of land in survey No. 242/B of Tirupati village, Tirupati urban mandal, Chittoor district. Together petitioners claim to own Ac.2.45 cents in Sy.No.242/B. Petitioners intend to sell portion of the above land. Vendor of petitioners represented to the Sub Registrar to furnish market value of property in Survey No. 242/B. The Sub Registrar vide his endorsement dated 14.3.2012 informed the vendor that as per Commissioner of Endowment letter Rc No. N1/27520/2009 dated 19.4.2010 the property is treated as Endowment property and prohibited from registration under Section 22 A (1) ( c) of Registration Act.
W.P.No.36309 OF 2013
3. Petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.05.46 cents in Sy.No.242/B3 of Kaminigunta Area, Tirupati Urban Mandal in Chitoor District having purchased the said property through registered sale deed bearing document no.163/2004 dated 17.01.2004 from his vendors, namely, A.Sivaramaiah and A.Rajendra Prasad. Petitioner desired to sell his property and when requested the Sub Registrar to receive and process the deed of conveyance, the Sub Registrar refused to receive the document purported in reference to letter of Commissioner dated 19.4.2010.
4. Heard Sri N Subba Rao and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri K.R.Prabhakar for 5th respondent Swami Hathiramji Mutt.
5. Learned counsel Sri Subba Rao traced the history of passing on the title to the vendors of petitioners dating back to 12.12.1948. He further submitted that in proceedings R.Dis.No.B/3878/92, dated 23.07.2003, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, observed that one A.Sivaramaih, S/o. Munaswamy applied for transfer of registry in respect of an extent of Ac.4.16 in Sy.No.242/B of Tirupati Village in accordance with the decree in O.S.No.358/1971 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi, which is confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court, though initially the property stood in the name of Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt (Mutt). The remaining extent of land continuous to be in the name of Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt.
6. He submitted that in accordance with the decree passed in O.S.No.358/1971, title was validly passed on to Sri Sivaramaiah and Rajendra Prasad, the vendors of the petitioners (petitioners 1, 3 and 4 in W.P.No.17386 of 2013 and petitioner in W.P.No.36309 of 2013) and, therefore, the purchase made by the petitioners was a valid transaction and therefore, the question of prohibition of transaction in the said property treating the property as belonging to Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt is illegal. It is contrary to the decree passed by the II Additional District Munsif, which has been confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court. It is further contended that this Court rendered judgment in W.P.No.27548 of 2013 on 23.09.2013 and in W.P.No.28708 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013, following the earlier decision in Pasuparthi Jayaram and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner, Endowments
[1]
Department, Hyderabad and others , and directed registration of the deeds of conveyance without raising the objection that the land belongs to the Mutt. The said decisions apply in all fours to the facts of this case and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to present deeds of conveyance and the Sub-Registrar cannot raise objection as the property belongs to the Mutt. Learned counsel Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala adopted the arguments of learned counsel Sri Subba Rao.
7. Sri K.R.Prabhakar, standing counsel for the respondent No.5 (the Mutt) contended that the Great Vaishnavite Saint, Sri Hathiramji Bavajee established the Mutt both at Tirupati and Tirumala with two folded objectives i.e., to provide shelter and food free of cost to Sadhus, Sanyasis and bairaagis, visiting Tirumala to Worship Lord venkateswara and Gosamrakshana. The Mutt received movable and immovable properties from the Donors, which include lands in Tiruchanur village. In the said manner, land to an extent of Ac.9.89 cents in Sy.No.242/B of Tirupati village accounts, has become the property of the Mutt. The Inam Commissioner, Madras vide title deed document No.2931, dated 21.09.1880 confirmed the title of the Mutt over the wet land admeasuring Ac.11.63 cents in Sy.No.242 of Tirupati village. This survey number was sub-divided into Sy.No.242/A, which consists of Ac.1.74 cents and Sy.No.242/B, which consists of Ac.9.89 cents. Ac.4.16 cents of wet land in Sy.No.242/B was given on permanent lease to Arunagiri Ramaswamy Mudaliar and Arunagiri Kuppaswamy Mudaliar under registered lease deed dated 01.04.1908 exclusively for cultivation. The tenants have to pay annual rent of Rs.27.10 paisa.
8. It is further averred that subsequently, Smt. A.Mogilamma came in possession of above said land. However, the sale deed prescribes payment of yearly rent at Rs.27/-. Mutt instituted O.S.No.358 of 1971 on the file of II Additional District Munsif at Tirupati for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation of its land to an extent of Ac.4.16 cents in Sy.No.242/B. Several issues were considered by the trial Court. The trial Court held that the Mutt is the owner of the land in possession; that Mutt is a religious institution and the properties owned by it are endowment properties; that the lease of such land is void; that the possession of defendants therein is illegal; that void transaction need not be set aside; that the permanent lease, deed dt.1.4.1908 is void and the possession of the suit land by the defendants therein is illegal and that Mutt is entitled for damages. However, trial Court rejected the suit on the ground of limitation. First and second appeals and SLP to Supreme Court were dismissed and the order of trial Court has become final.
9. Learned standing counsel further contended that the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri, conducted suomoto enquiry in accordance with the provision of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and by following due procedure held that land in Sy.Nos.242/A and 242/B is an inam land and held by the respondent Mutt. The said decision was notified in the Chittoor District Gazette, dated 09.11.1959. This order of the Inam Deputy Tahasildar has become final as there was no challenge made and the said declaration is binding on all parties. As a consequence to the said declaration, the Deputy Tahsildar granted ryothwari patta to the entire land in favour of Mutt. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent Mutt has become absolute owner to the total extent of Ac.11.63 cents in Sy.No.242. In view of the findings recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.358 of 1971 and the orders passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, ownership of the Mutt is not in dispute. Thus, Mutt being the owner, only authorized Officer of the Mutt is entitled to alienate the properties belonging to the Mutt. No third party can undertake transfer of ownership on the lands of the Mutt in Sy.Nos.242/A and 242/B.
10. It is further contended that B.Ramaiah, the ex-employee of Mutt, was the main culprit for causing loss to the properties of the Mutt. He colluded with the defendants in O.S.No.358/1971 and suppressed the fact that ryothwari patta was granted in favour of the Mutt. He also created takids and other documents to support the claim of ex-tenants and deliberately admitted all the created documents to defeat the valuable rights of Mutt. Thus, defendants in collusion with B.Ramaiah played fraud and obtained the judgment in O.S.No.358/1971. Crime was registered against B.Ramaiah and he was arrested and from his possession takid papers, stamp and facsimile signature of the then Mahant were seized. He confessed the above facts before the police. Thus, no credence can be given to the relevant findings recorded in the said O.S. Thus, the judgment is per-incuriam.
11. It is further contended that Smt. A.Mogilamma instituted O.S.No.242 of 1985 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, praying to grant permanent injunction against respondent- Mutt. During the pendency of the suit, she died and her sons, namely, A.Sivaramaiah and A.Rajendra Prasad came on record and contested the suit. They amended the prayer in the said suit and sought for declaration of their right to continue in possession to an extent of Ac.5.73 cents in Sy.No.242/B. The suit was dismissed rejecting the contentions of the plaintiffs regarding their entitlement to permanent injunction and declaration. A.S.No.2951 of 2000 filed against the said judgment is pending for consideration by this Court. Learned standing counsel contends that Sri A.Sivaramaiah in his deposition in O.S.No.242/1985 admitted that the permanent lease was granted in favour of his predecessors and that they paid the rent to the Mutt. He, therefore, submits that they were only the tenants and the title is not passed on them. Thus, the claim of the petitioners that purchase made by the petitioners in the year 2004 was validly made is not correct. The tenant cannot alienate the property belonging to the Mutt.
12. It is further contended that the land in issue is an agricultural land covered by the lease in accordance with provisions contained in Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987. All the permanent leases of the agricultural lands belonging to the Religions institutions stand cancelled and concerned institutions are entitled to recover the possession after following due procedure. Thus, Mutt invoked the provisions under Section 82 of the Act 30 of 1987 calling upon A.Sivaramaiah and A.Rajendra Prasad to deliver the vacant possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.16 cents in Sy.No.242/B. This show cause notice was challenged in this Court in W.P.No.20590 of 2005. By judgment dated 18.09.2008, writ petition was allowed, granting liberty to the Mutt to initiate appropriate proceedings as warranted by law for recovery of possession. Accordingly, the Mutt has approached the A.P.State Endowments Tribunal and O.A.No.2999 of 2010 is pending on the file of Endowments Tribunal. Learned standing counsel further contended that Mutt filed O.S.No.776 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Thirupati, praying for permanent injunction restraining the vendors of the petitioners from converting the land into house sites and the said suit is pending.
13. It is therefore contended that to defeat the valuable rights of the Mutt during the pendency of the O.A. before the Endowments Tribunal and O.S.No.776 of 2009 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Tirupathi, petitioners are seeking to dispose of the properties causing huge loss and hardship to the Mutt.
14. Learned standing counsel further contended that the Writ Petition Nos.27548 and 28708 of 2013 were disposed of without putting the Mutt on notice and they were ex parte orders. These writ petitions are allowed based on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.10068 of 2013. Mutt has filed review in all the writ petitions and the said review petitions are pending.
15. In order to protect the properties of the Mutt, Mutt has placed all the relevant documents concerning the title to the properties, in Sy.No.242/A and 242/B before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor and after verifying the entire record and having satisfied that the land is an endowment land, same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Endowments and accordingly Commissioner of Endowments passed orders on 19.04.2010 informing the registering authorities the status of the land and requesting them not to entertain any deed of conveyance on the said properties. The said decision of Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. Learned standing counsel therefore submits that petitioners are not entitled to any relief and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
16. The standing counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
i) Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by
[2]
its Director K.M.Cherian , for the proposition that the Courts should keep in mind the purpose or objective of the statute enacted. In the given case, purposive interpretation should be adopted.
[3]
ii) Chittoor Chegaiah vs. Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt for the proposition that mere grant of a lease would not result in a tenant- landlord relationship since it is implied in such an agreement that non fulfilment of the prescribed terms would give the right to the landlord to evict the tenant.
[4]
iii) State of H.P. vs. Keshavram and others for the proposition that mere entry in the settlement papers would neither create nor deny existence of title.
iv) Durga Das vs. Collector and others[5] for the proposition that mutation entries do not confer any title to the property. It is only an entry for collection of the land revenue from the person in possession of the land.
v) W.P.No.4869 of 2012 This case concerns the property of Swami Hathiramji Mutt. When petitioner presented document to the Registrar for the purpose of registration, the authority refused to register the same on the ground that he got information that the land belonged to the Mutt and that No Objection Certificate was needed to register the same. Referring to Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Court observed that the aggrieved person must approach Endowments Tribunal. Court also observed that the objection to the registration of the land cannot be deemed illegal as information was given and objection was recorded under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
vi) Similar view was taken by the court in W.P.No.27552 of 2012 dated 17.2.2012, which was upheld by Division Bench in W.P.No.500 of 2002.
17. I n Pasuparthi Jayaram, the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 19.4.2010 was fallen for consideration. The registering authority refused to receive the deed of conveyance and register the documents concerning the lands in Sy.No.242/B of Tirupati village by relying on proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments on 19.04.2010. It is further contended on behalf of Registration Department that as the land is classified as endowment land belonging to Sri Hathi Ramji Math, Tirupati, no transactions can be entertained in view of the provision contained in Section 22-A (1)(c) of the Act.
18. After construing the provisions of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act, 1908, this Court held that said provision pre-supposes the title of the institution over the land and merely prohibits registration of documents executed by those without authority. This Court, therefore, held that the only list that could be communicated under this provision would be the list of those designated persons who have power and authority to execute documents on behalf of the Religious/Charitable/Endowment/ Wakf institutions and not a list of the properties belonging to such institutions. This Court, therefore, held that the communication dated 19.04.2010, proceeds on a complete misconception and misunderstanding of the scope of the above provisions and religious institutions can seek to assert any right over a property and prohibit registration of the document relating to such property only if a notification is issued under Section 22-A(2) of the Act, 1908. It is thus held that, in the absence of notification under Section 22-A(2), it is not open to Endowments Department to communicate a list of properties by way of a letter and trace the power to do so Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act, 1908. Having recorded the said findings, the Court sets aside the communication dt.19.04.2010 and issued consequential directions. Following the above decision, W.P.Nos.27548 and 28708 of 2013 were also allowed.
19. Strong emphasize is made by the learned standing counsel for the Mutt on the decision of the trial Court in O.S.No.358 of 1971 to contend that at the most what was granted was only a perpetual lease and, therefore, the title still vests with the Mutt and, therefore, Mutt is the owner of land in Sy.No.242/B. In support of the said contention, learned standing counsel placed reliance on the decisions referred to above.
20. To appreciate the said contention, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.59 of 1986 arising out of O.S.No.358 of 1971. The Court noticed that the permanent lease was granted as early as on 01.04.1908. The permanent lessees have sold the property and thereafter there have been several transactions. In the said manner, property was acquired by the first defendant/respondent Amudula Mogilamma. This Court held that defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit land. It is also held that plaintiff was aware of the same. This Court noticed that the defendant has constructed a permanent building, provided regular source of irrigation and was raising mango and coconut garden. Having noticed the above facts, the Court held as under:
“Hence, the defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit land. The plaintiff is aware of the same…. It is thus seen that the property since from 1908 has exchanged at least 10 hands and the persons in possession when they purchased the property, bona fide believed that their immediate vendor or the predecessors of the vendor had full title as permanent lessees. The land has been considerably improved over the course of 70 years. In my view, the defendant-respondents will suffer great hardship, if their possession is now disturbed at this distance of time. On account of the long possession of the respondents and their predecessors over 70 years in the belief that they had acquired the permanent tenancy rights irrevocably and that the landlord has lost his right to recover possession long back, I am not inclined to permit the appellant’s counsel to raise this point based on Sec.103 of A.P.Act of 1966 at the stage of arguments, especially when it was not raised in the memorandum of grounds.”
21. The SLP filed against S A No. 59 of 1986 was dismissed by Supreme Court.
22. In view of the above findings of this Court in S.A.No.59 of 1986, it is no more open for the respondent-Mutt to contend that they continued to be the owners and further conveyance cannot be carried out. Consequent to the judgment in A.S.No.59 of 1986, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati, issued orders in R.Dis/B/3878/92, dated 23.07.2003 effecting transfer of properties in the name of A.Sivaramaiah and A.Rajendra Prasad and he has also issued a certificate on 24.07.2003 classifying the land to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.242/B1 and Ac.3.86 cents in Sy.No.242/B3 of Tirupathi as patta land and standing in the name of Sri A.Sivaramaiah and A.Rajendra Prasad. These orders are not under challenge.
23. Thus ignoring the earlier findings of this Court in S.A.No.59 of 1986 and orders of Mandal Revenue Officer, the Commissioner could not have issued communication on 19.04.2010. Be that as it may, this letter of the Commissioner was considered by this Court in Pasuparthi Jayaram and this Court sets aside the memo. Thus, it is no more open for the respondent-registering authority to refer to the said letter to deny market value and the registration of deed of conveyance presented by the petitioners.
24. Having regard to the above findings, the writ petitions are allowed and the Sub-Registrar/Joint Sub Registrar-I , Tirupati, Chittoor District is directed to furnish market value on lands in Survey No. 242/B and 242/B3 of Tirupati village, Tirupati urban mandal, Chittoor district and to receive the deeds of conveyance as and when presented by the petitioners concerning the lands owned by them in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and register and release the same to the petitioners if the documents are otherwise in order. It is made clear that opinion expressed herein above is for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions and the issue concerning registration of a deed of conveyance in accordance with Indian Registration Act, 1908 and shall have no bearing on pending proceedings on any other issue. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date :18.06.2014 Kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO kkm
WRIT PETITION Nos. 17386 and 36309 of 2013
Date: 18 .06.2014
[1] 2013 (4) ALT 541
[2] 2014 (2) SCC 62
[3] 2010 (3) SCC 776
[4] (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 257
[5] (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 618