AUDINARYANA Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Bheemeswaraswamy Temple, Draksharamam (referred to as 'the temple') owns land in Velampalem, Vegayampet, Ramachandrapuram and Chodavaram villages in all Ac. 95-21 cents. The writ petitioner has leased in public 'auction' Ac. 26-85 cents on 30-5-1968 for annual maktha (rents) of 384 bags of paddy for six years (Faslies 1378 to 1383). The auction proceedings were approved by the endowments commissioner on 26-8-1968. The writ petitioner, however, for fixation of rent (A.T.P. 1 of 1969) moved the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram under Andhra Tenancy Act and simultaneously made representation to the Government in 1970 for 'remission' of rent as crops failed for various natural calamities in Faslies 1378 to 1380. The remission was accorded in what is termed as 'compromise' arrived on 23-2-1972; the terms in that were twice modified, finally in the order of the commissioner on 17-7-1972. The order directed the petitioner as having agreed to withdraw A.T.P. 1 of 1969 and to pay rents as modified in the order. The hereditary trustee of the temple under section 83 of Act XVII of 1966 before the Government successfully questioned the order of the commissioner. The effect of the order is the order of 'compromise' on 17-7-1972 was no more binding between the parties as the state Government states the commissioner's order "is not in the interests of the institution (temple) and accordingly the revision petition is allowed and the order of the commissioner, endowments issued in his proceedings letter No. 78 No. 100/70-1 dated 17-7-1972 are hereby cancelled".

(2.) The government's order is assailed on the question of power and the main thrust is the orders on 23-2-1972 and 17-7-1972 of the commissioner are neither 'decision' nor a "proceedings" of the character to fall within the scope of section 83 of 1966 act. Section 83 of the act omitting the unnecessary portion, reads as follows:

(3.) The words "proceedings" and "decision" were found in identical terms in section 99 of the repealed Act XIX of 1951. The two expressions were considered and it was held the language in section 99, the setting in section 83 of 1966 act are identical (writ appeal No. 653 of 1973 on 14-3-1975) and have interpreted the "expression 'proceeding' is not administrative proceedings but a judicial proceeding' that interpretation in writ appeal No. 66 of 1956 was affirmed on 14-3-1975.