SARVA SANGHA SEVA ASHRAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under :

(2.) The facts stated supra themselves establish that the petitioner has no semblance of legal right to seek the above two remedies. The petitioner is admittedly an encroacher of the land belonging to the temple. The petitioner as a matter of right or as a matter of course cannot claim that the temple Management shall sell the subject land to it and its members. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to establish the obligation cast on the temple management to sell its property to the petitioner society as a matter of legal obligation. Secondly, the petitioner being an encroacher cannot seek injunction against the admitted lawful owner. Thirdly, the so called application made by the petitioner on 14-7-1992 is extra-legal in nature and no writ will lie to the respondent-management of the temple to consider and dispose of an extra-legal application. In expressing this opinion, 1 need not dilate further, because this Court, has had an occasion in Water Users' Association, Peddachenwit v. The District Collector, Krishna District, 1998 (5) ALD 238, to consider similar question, and after referring to the binding authorities of the Supreme Court, opined that no direction shall issue to an authority under Article 226 to consider and dispose of extra-legal petitions, correspondences, letters etc. No doubt if an applicant for the writ under Article 226 shows that he has a right to be considered at the hands of the respondent-public authorities, writ will tie to such authorities to consider his claim/application, as the case may be. But, such right to be considered should be established with reference to the Constitution or public law, statute or common law principles. In the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he has a right to be considered and the temple administration is under a legal obligation to consider the application of the petitioner dated 14-7-1992. In other words, the temple administration, if it is so chooses, can ignore the application of the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, after referring to the pleading of the affidavit where it is stated that the Trust Board of the 3rd respondent temple has constituted a Committee to consider the request of the encroachers to purchase the encroached property belonging to temple, would maintain that the petitioner has a right to be considered. This managerial action taken by the Trust Board of the temple to deal with its properties does not/cannot impose a legally enforceable public law obligation on the temple management nor does it create a right in the petitioner to purchase the encroached land as a matter of course or law or right without volition of the temple management. Therefore, issuance of mandamus to the temple management to sell the encroached land to the petitioner or its members does not arise. Writ Petition is grounded on the mis-conceived right of the petitioner.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.