ADINARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 Fashes 1378 to 1380. The remission was accorded in what is termed as 'compromise' armed 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. I 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 moren 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". 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 Comissioner 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:

(2.) The words "proceedings" and "decision" were found in identical terms in section 99 of the repealed Act XIX of 1951.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 Appeall No. 653 of 1973 on 14-3-1975) and have interpreted the "expression 'proceeding' is not administrative proceedings but a judical proceeding' That interpretation in Writ Appeal No. 66 of 1956 was affirmed on 14-3-1975. The impugned order pertains to rent payable by the tenant. The Commissioner's order, therefore, cannot be construed as "judicial proceeding" or a decision as the order speaks of the rent payable by the tenant. Therefore, following the reasoning and the diectum laid in Writ Appeal No. 653 of 1973, the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 517, dt. 9-4-1976 is declared without jurisdiction.

(3.) The fact that the tenant withdrew A.T.P. 1 of 1969 pursuant to the terms of compromise is also decisive of the question. The temple authorities induced the tenant to withdraw A.T.P, 1 of 1969 and costs of Rs. 70 was received by the temple as costs of the litigation and the rents on 10-8-1973, In more than one sense the compromise was acted. The temple authorities are therefore estopped to repudiate when the tenant acted to his detriment. A passage in CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING Co. Ltd. vs. ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL] in this regard merits quotation in full as the passage elucidates the point ; "There is undoubtedly a clear distinction between a representation of an existing fact and a representation that something will be done in future. The former may, if it amounts to a representation as to some fact alleged at the time to be actually in existence, raise an estoppel, if another person alters his position relying upon that representation. A representation that some thing will be done in the future may result in a contract, if another person to whom it is addressed acts upon it. A representation that something will be done in future is not a representation that is true when made. But between a representation of a fact which is untrue and a representation express or impliedto do something in future, there is no clear antithesis. A representation that something will be done in fature may involve an existing intention to act in future in the manner represented. If the representation is acted upon by another person it may, unless the statute governing the person making the representation provides otherwise, result in an agreement enforceable at Law; if the statute requires that the agreement shall be in a certain form, contract may result from the representation and acting therefore but the law is not powerless to raise in appropriate cases an equity against him to compel performance of the obligation arising out of his representation". The writ petition is allowed with costs. Advocate's fees Rs. 150. V.J.R. W.P. Allowed.