THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.3258 of 2010 Between:
Venkatesh PETITIONER AND
1. The Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Revenue (Endowment) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges G.O.Ms.No.881, Revenue (Endowments II/1) Department, dated 19.08.2003, issued by the 1st respondent-State Government. By virtue of the said order, the State Government accorded permission for sale of land belonging to Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust in favour of the 4th respondent.
2. Heard Sri K. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the 1st respondent-State Government, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Trust and Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as under:
The land, admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas forming part of Sy.No.91/1, situated at Degloor Road, Nanded, Maharashtra State, was originally owned and possessed by Sri Kachrulal, S/o. Ganeshlal, Nanded Town, who sold the said land in favour of Sri Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, the 3rd respondent herein, by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.780/51, dated 7.09.1951. The 3rd respondent-Trust through its Chairman B. Kishan Lal has appointed one Sri Laxmikant Shankar Rao Gone S/o.Shankar Rao as G.P.A. holder of the Trust, vide document No.2270 of 1994, dated 19.11.1994. The said G.P.A., leased out a portion of the land, admeasuring 6793.4 sq. yards in favour of the petitioner and two others, by way of registered lease deed bearing document No2956 of 1995, dated 18.08.1995, for a period of 99 years. Since the date of lease the petitioner is in exclusive enjoyment of the said property, and the name of the petitioner has been incorporated in the property record issued by the City Survey Office, Nanded and the petitioner is also paying property tax regularly. While so, the 1st respondent-State Government, while accepting the proposal of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, issued G.O.Ms.No.881, dated 19.08.2003, according permission to sell the land and directed the 4th respondent to pay @ Rs.8.00 lakhs per hectare. Challenging the said G.O. the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi on 16.2.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.4287 of 2010 granted interim suspension of the impugned Governmental Order. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued, counter affidavits have been filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents, denying the averments and the allegations made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned order.
5. Submissions/contentions of the counsel for the petitioner.
i) The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’)
ii) The respondents did not adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 80 of the Act and no reasons are assigned in the G.O, as per Section 80(1)(c) of the Act.
iii) The Commissioner wrongly informed the Government that no litigation was pending.
iv) The Government erred in issuing the impugned G.O., in favour of the 3rd respondent in view of the existence of lease in favour of the petitioner.
In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel places strong reliance on the orders in W.P.No.18083 of 2003 and batch, dated 4.04.2012, and judgments in Vangala Narasimhacharyulu v. The
[1]
State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.,
[2]
and Smt. M. Chengamma v. V.
Nagamani .
6. Submissions of Sri Ch. Satish Kumar and Ravi Kondaviti, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.
i) This writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of delay of seven years in approaching this Court and there is no explanation whatsoever given by the petitioner for the said delay.
ii) In pursuance of the impugned order the sale deed was executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent vide document No.849 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004 and the same was registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nanded. Seeking cancellation of the same, the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded (Maharashtra) and the same is pending, as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
iii) Earlier one Sri Satyendra, cousin of the petitioner, filed W.P.No.21567 of 2004, challenging the present impugned Governmental Order and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.07.2012. Against the said Satyendra, the 4th respondent herein filed C.S.No.219 of 1995 before the VI Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed on 24.02.1997 and Civil Appeal No.74 of 1997 filed before the learned District Judge, Nanded was also dismissed on 24.09.1997 and S.A.No.218 of 1998 filed against the same is pending before the High Court.
iv) G.P.A., which is the basis and foundation for the case of the petitioner, was held to be invalid by this Court in the judgment in Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department v. Sri
[3]
Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Societies Ltd., .
v) In view of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
In support of his submissions and contentions the learned counsel for the 4th respondent places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar v. Department of Atomic Energy and
[4] [5]
ors., ; Huchamma (dead) by Lrs. V. State of Karnataka and ors. ;
and Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Motilal Agarwal and
[6]
ors. .
7. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions pressed into service by the parties to the present lis, the issues, which this Court is called upon to address, are -
1. Whether the delay in filing the writ petition is fatal to the case of the petitioner and whether on this ground the writ petition is liable to be rejected?
2. Whether the petitioner can prosecute the Civil Suit and the present writ petition simultaneously?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief based on the G.P.A in view of the decision of this Court in Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department v. Sri Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Societies Ltd., (3 supra).
8. The material made available before this Court manifestly reveals that basing on the report/proposals of the Commissioner of Endowments, the Government of A.P., issued the impugned order in the year 2003, according permission for sale of the subject land, and the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2010. It is to be noted in this context that the entire writ affidavit is absolutely silent as to why the petitioner maintained complete silence for seven long years for approaching this Court for assailing the impugned Governmental Order. This unexplained delay is sufficient to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. In this Connection, it may be apt and appropriate to refer to the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent No.4. In Naresh Kumar v. Department of Atomic Energy and ors., (4 supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.15 held as under:
“Merely because the case of the appellant was forwarded by the Department vide its Letter dated 27.01.2007 for favourable consideration, would not vest any right in the petitioner and can hardly be of any material consequence. If an employee keeps making representation after representation which are consistently rejected then the appellant cannot claim any relief on that ground. We are unable to find any merit in the contention raised before us and we are also of the view that the High Court was not in error while dismissing the writ petition even on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The representation of the appellant was rejected as back in the year 1999 and for the reasons best known to the appellant he did not challenge the same before the court of competent jurisdiction.”
10. In Huchamma (dead) by Lrs. V. State of Karnataka and ors. (5 supra) The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as under:
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court as we find that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay holding that the preliminary Notification acquiring the land in question including he lands of the appellant was issued on 15.07.1982 and the final Notification was issued on 16.08.1985 and the award was passed on 12.05.1998, and subsequent to that the writ petition was filed in the year 2000.
We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order passed by this Court on 4.03.2005 stands vacated.”
11. I n Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Motilal Agarwal and ors (6 supra) the Hon'ble’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 held as under:
“In our view, even if the objection of delay and laches had not been raised in the affidavits filed on behalf of BDA and the State Government, the High court was duty-bound to take cognizance of the long time gap of nine years between the issue of declaration under Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition, and declined relief to Respondent 1 on the ground that he was guilty of laches because the acquired land had been utilised for implementing the residential scheme and third-party rights had been created. The unexplained delay of about six years between the passing of award and filing of the writ petition was also sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition.
It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.”
12. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred judgments and in the absence of any reasonable and plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for the abnormal delay of seven years in approaching this Court, this writ petition fails on the ground of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments referred on behalf of the petitioner would not render any assistance to the petitioner. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered against the petitioner.
13. Coming to Issue No.2, it is an admitted fact that seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, and the same is admittedly pending, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot prosecute two remedies simultaneously before two different fora. Therefore, Issue No.2 is also answered against the petitioner.
14. The very foundation and basis for the case of the petitioner is the General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the 3rd respondent, viz., Sri B. Kishanlal, and the lease deed executed in terms of the said G.P.A. In fact, the identical G.P.As executed by Sri B. Kishanlal were the subject matter of litigation before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department v. Sri Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Societies Ltd., (3 supra) held that the transactions affected by the said B. Kishanlal are invalid, void and inoperative. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to claim any right basing on such invalid and void document, in this writ petition.
15. The impugned order also reveals the reasons for sale of the said property in favour of the 4th respondent, which is also a charitable institution, and in fact, no mala fides are attributed by the petitioner against the parties, as such, this Court, at this length of time, is not inclined to show any indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of Section 82 of the Endowments Act the petitioner cannot claim any tenancy rights. In fact, the possession of the petitioner is also denied by the respondents in their counter affidavits.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the judgments cited on behalf of the respondents, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the petitioner has utterly failed in making out a case, warranting any interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
19th September, 2014 Js.
[1] 1995 (1) ALD 467
[2] 2010 (4) U.P.L.M. 285 (HC)
[3] 2003 (6) ALD 225 (DB)
[4] (2010) 7 SCC 525
[5] (2009) 16 SCC 656
[6] (2011) 5 SCC 394