NAGAMANI V Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 751, dt. 171-8-1990 by which the State Government accorded permission to the Custodian of Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District for sale of land measuring a total extent of Ac. 25.36 gts. belonging to the mutt at the rate of Rs. 22,000.00 per acre in favour of the sitting tenants i.e., an extent of Ac. 14.36 cents in Sy.No. 51/1 in favour of Smt. M. Changamma and an extent of Ac. 11.00 cents in Sy.No. 54/2 in favour of Sri T. Muniswamy Naidu by registered sale deeds dt. 25-10-1990 and dt. 15-10-1990 vide document Nos. 881 and 859 of 1990 respectively by relaxing the ban on sale of temple lands, this writ pctuion is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the said order. Before adverting to the contentions raised, it is necessary to notice few facts of the case.

(2.) Respondents 4 and 5 were the sitting tenants of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, which owns immovable property worth crores of rupees. Originally, they were granted permanent lease by the then Mahant. After the death of the then mahant a suit in O.S.No. 6 of 1966 was filed before the Sub-Court, Chittoor for cancellation of the permanent leas,e, which was decreed declaring that permanent lease is not valid in law. However, respondents 4 and 5 managed to continue as tenants under lease deeds executed from time to time. It appears that the mahant of the mutt was suspended in the year 1980 on serious allegations of mismanagement of the mutt and misappropriation of its funds. The Commissioner of Endowments appointed the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to be in-charge of the day-to-day administration of the mutt in place of the mahant. Meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner proposed the sale of certain properties belonging to the above mutt. Aggrieved by the same a writ petition in W.P.No. 3621, of 1982 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dt. 20-10-1983 directing the official respondents not to sell the mutt's properties till a person who can competently represent the mutt is appointed. While so, in the year 1985 the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments after making an application for sanction from the Commissioner issued a notification dt. 4-1-1985 proposing to sell 11 acres of land belonging to the mutt and calling for suggestions and objections, it any, from the public. In reply to the above notification, the petitioner herein filed objections suggesting that the lands proposed to be sold may be done so by public auction or through private negotiations. It was also stated in the objection petition that the description of the land was incorrect, the concurrence of the mahant was not obtained and that the proposed value of the land is less. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the objections filed and without following the procedure contemplated in law the impugned G.O. dt. 17-8-1990 was passed by the Government in exercise of power conferred under first proviso to Section, 80(l)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 30/1987), for short The Act', and in relaxation of the ban imposed on the sale of temple lands imposed in Government Memo dt. 23-1-1990 accorded permission to the custodian of the mutt to sell land admeasuring a total extent of Ac. 25.36 cents belonging to the mutt in Sy.Nos. 51/1 and 54/2 of Pudipatla village of Tirupathi at the rate of Rs. 22,000.00 per acre in favour of the sitting tenants i.e., respondents 4 and 5 otherwise than public auction. Under those circumstances, the present writ petition is filed to declare the sale transactions of the immovable properties in question as null and void.

(3.) The main objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without following the procedure contemplated under Section 80 r/w Section 183 of the Act and Rule 6 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Alienation of Immovable Properties Rules, 1987, which mandate that the sale of any immovable property sanctioned by the Commissioner under Section 80(l)(b) of the Act shall be effected by tender-cum-public auction and under Section 81 of the Act which envisages that sale of any immovable property without prior sanction of the Commissioner or Government shall be null and void. It is also contended that the impugned order is not passed in the interest of the institution/endowment and no reasons were recorded while granting permission by the Government for sale of the properties in question otherwise than public auction. In support of the above contentions the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Kami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., wherein the action of the Government granting permission to sell the land belonging to a charitable endowment by private negotiations instead of by public auction was deprecated observing that care must be taken while fixing the market value for the sake of safeguarding the interest of the endowment. The Supreme Court in R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkataraynlit Naidu affirmed the said view. The learned Counsel also relied upon judgments of this Court rendered in Board of Trustees of Sri Balaji Eshwara Veerabhadra Swamy Temple v. State of A.P., Sontanatlw Reddy v. Government of A.P. and Employees Association v. Sri Chenna Keshava Swamy Temple wherein it was declared that the Government is obligated in law to record reasons in justification of the decision to sell the lands to the sitting tenants otherwise than by standard mode prescribed and that the Government Order is unsustainable in the absence of reasons recorded for granting permission.