PATHURI ANANTHA RAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah and Korrapati Venkat Rao filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of the fifth respondent in refusing to receive and process the sale deed presented by this petitioners pertaining to the property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in D.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to receive and process the Sale Deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the above property.

(2.) The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, originally, property in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in 15/1C and Ac.0-05 cents in 15/2C was purchased by one Syed Adam in auction proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide R.C.No.M2/ 56940/ 1990 dtd. 4/5/1992 from the Endowments Department. Accordingly, the Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swami Temple, Vadavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town and Mandal, Guntur District executed registered Sale Deed Document No.2079/1992 dtd. 10/6/1992 in favour of Syed Adam. One Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao purchased the property from Syed Adam by way of registered Sale Deed Document No.3179/1999 dtd. 31/7/1999 and the present petitioners jointly purchased property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Satttenapalli Mandal, Guntur District from Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao by way of Registered Sale Deed Document No.1658/2009 dtd. 16/4/2009. Thus, the petitioners became owners of property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Satttenapalli Mandal, Guntur District by purchase from the original owner - Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao.

(3.) An auction was conducted on 8/6/1992 and possession of the property was also handed over in favour of the auction purchasers. Hence, it is evident that the subject property is not an Endowment property and it ceased to be endowment property on sale of the property in the public auction by the sixth respondent after obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Endowments and it became purely a private property and not governed by the provisions of Act 30 of 1987.