THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.10833 of 2009 Between:
Sri Surada Satyarao PETITIONER AND
1. Government of A.P. Revenue, Endowments (IV) Department rep. by Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the 1st respondent-Government, vide Memo No.399/Endts-IV(2)/2004, dated 01.04.2009 wherein and whereunder the State Government dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard Smt.N(P). Anjana Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-institution, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts and circumstance leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
The 2nd respondent-Institution filed O.A.No.155 of 1994 before the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, against the mother of the petitioner, viz., late Smt. S. Narayanamma under Section 83(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (‘the Act’ for brevity), seeking her eviction from the building D.No.35-1-1, Digumartivari Street, Kakinada Town. The 3rd respondent, by virtue of order No.18/95-A4.Jdl, dated, 4.07.1995, allowed the said O.A directing removal of encroachment while declaring the mother of the petitioner as an encroacher. Aggrieved by the said order, the mother of the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2397 of 1995 before this Court. Initially, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order of eviction dated 04.07.1995, in C.M.P.No.10178 of 1995.
Subsequently, the said C.R.P. was dismissed by this Court as not maintainable and the petitioner therein was granted 15 days time to avail the remedy under Section 92 of the Act. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner filed R.P.No.35 of 1996 before the 4th respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada under Section 92 of the Act and the said revision petition was dismissed by the Regional Joint commissioner by way of an order dated 01.03.2000. The petitioner’s mother filed further revision before the Government, obviously, under Section 93 of the Act and the same ended in dismissal by virtue of the impugned Memo dated 01.03.2009 passed by the State Government.
4. Calling in question the validity and legal acceptability of the said order passed by the Government, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner, who is the son of Smt. S. Narayanamma, who appears to have died pending revision before the Government.
5. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-institution and a reply is also filed by the petitioner to the said counter.
6. During the course of hearing, a preliminary objection is raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4, contending that the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments passed the order of eviction on 4.07.1995 in O.A.No.155 of 1994, and by the time the remedy available to the aggrieved party was to file a civil suit under the un-amended Section 84 (2) of the Endowments Act but not a revision either before this Court or before the respondent-authorities. It is further contended that now as per the amended provision of Section 84 (2) of the Act any order passed by the Tribunal, which is now a substitute for the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, appeal lies to this Court but not a writ petition.
7. In the present writ petition, a perusal of the material available before this Court manifestly discloses that instead of instituting a suit, questioning the order of eviction passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Section 84(2) of the un-amended Act, the petitioner’s mother preferred a revision before this Court and thereafter approached the Regional Joint Commissioner by way of revision under Section 92 of the Act, and subsequently by way of further revision under Section 93 before the State Government. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s mother and now the petitioner did choose wrong fora, for redressal of their grievance at different intervals. The stand of the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel, in the considered opinion of this Court, is in conformity with the provisions of the Endowments Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the said ground when the remedy is available now to this Court by way of an appeal, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Executive Officer, Group Temples, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District v. Sri Sakhiya Matt,
[1]
Srikakulam and ors.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file appeal before this Court under Section 84(2) of the Act with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any stands closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
17th November, 2014 Js.
[1] 2010 (5) ALD 739.