HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 776 of 2010 DATE: 16.10.2014 Between:
Sri Varaha Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep., by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam.
… Appellant And M. Jaya Satyavathi & another.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 776 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ appeal has been preferred by the 1st respondent in the writ petition feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.10.2010 of the learned Single Judge by which His Lordship was pleased to pass appropriate order.
The writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner - 1st respondent for a Mandamus declaring that she is having lawful possession with absolute rights and title to the land admeasuring Ac.7.04 cents in Sy.No.275/F of Adivivaram Village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and that the 1st respondent – appellant herein or anybody acting on their behalf had no jurisdiction to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the rights of the ownership and her successors-in-interest. The learned Single Judge did not grant any declaration of ownership of rights, but recognized the writ petitioner’s permanent occupancy rights and gave directions to the appellant in the manner as follows:
“1) The 1st respondent shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law.
2) The 2nd respondent shall receive the documents relating to the land in question as and when prescribed by the petitioner/her successors-in-title and register the same in accordance with law.”
After hearing the learned counsel at length, it appears to us that as on the day when the writ petition was disposed of, going by the provisions of law applicable and prevailing at that point of time, there was no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. The first direction given by the learned Single Judge in our view is absolutely in consonance with the provisions of law.
Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Section 8 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, which reads as follows:
“8. Rights of permanent occupancy to tenant in inam lands held by institutions in inam villages:- (1) In the case of an inam land held by an institution in an inam village, the tenant who is declared to be in occupation of the inam land on the 7th January, 1948, under Section 5, or if there is no such tenant, the tenant occupation of the land on the date of commencement of this Act, shall have a right of permanent occupancy in that land and the said right shall be heritable and shall be transferable by sale, gift or otherwise.
(2) Where any tenant having such right of permanent occupancy;
(i) fails to pay rent due by him to the institution
(a) in respect of a period immediately before the commencement of this Act, within sixty days from such commencement; or
(b) in respect of a period after the commencement of this Act, within sixty days from the date when the rent becomes payable; or
(ii) uses, the land in any manner which materially impairs the value of the land and renders it unfit for agricultural purposes;
it shall be lawful for the institution to evict such tenant as provided in Section 9.”
Now the situation has changed as the right of permanent occupancy is de-recognized by law in relation to inam lands of religious and charitable institutions. This amendment has been given retrospective effect. So the learned counsel for the appellant says that taking note of the subsequent development this Court should pass appropriate orders de-recognizing the right of permanent occupancy of the 1st respondent. We are informed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that registration has taken place in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge and the transferee is in possession and occupation.
In our considered view, the appeal is a continuation of the writ proceedings so the Court will grant relief as prayed for in the writ petition by the petitioner and not by the respondents unless a counter claim is filed in the writ petition separately. This is not the case here. We are of the view that the impugned judgment is quite justified on the basis of the provisions of law then applicable and prevailing. However, even if we go by the right, as determined by the learned Single Judge, this right of occupancy is not an absolute one and rather, it is vulnerable to eviction in certain situations as mentioned in Section 8(2) of the Act. Therefore, it is always open for the appellant to take recourse to law as may be advised and for this purpose, it would be open for the appellant to enforce the amended provisions of law, if such action is taken. It will also be open for the appellant to take steps for cancellation of the registered document, which is said to have been effected pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge.
We accordingly clarify the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner’s permanent occupancy right will not stand in the way, if fresh action is lodged before the appropriate forum. For the ends of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings, we allow the interim order of status quo to be continued for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All questions including the question of applicability of the amendment are kept open.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 16.10.2014 ES