APHC010568122013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 213/2013 Between: S. Mahaboob Basha ...APPELLANT AND The A. P. Endowments Tribunal & 2 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 335/2014 Between: Kadiri Krishna Murthy ...APPELLANT AND Sri Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams & Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHYAM S AGRAWAL(SC FOR TTD) 2. V R N PRASHANTH 3. O MANOHER REDDY 4. J UGRANARASIMHA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.NOs.213 of 2013 & 335 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These C.M.As are filed questioning the Order dated 15.12.2012 in O.A.No.2853 of 2010 (Old No.8/2006 of DC, Kurnool) passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. C.M.A.No.335 of 2014 was filed along with the leave application as the Appellant in the said Appeal is not a party-respondent before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are as follows:- Sri Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (for short “T.T.D”) had filed O.A.No.2853 of 2010 under Section 83 R/w 118 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “Endowments Act”) seeking to declare the Respondents therein i.e. S. Mahaboob Basha and Smt. G. Devikamma as ‘encroachers’ of the schedule property and direct them to remove the encroachments and deliver vacant possession. 4. As per T.T.D, the schedule property was allotted vide Proceedings ROC Rev.2/11191/83, dated 12.01.1995 and allotted house sites to its employees as a welfare measure to enable them to own houses. The schedule property is a part of the house sites, which were allotted by T.T.D in favour of one S. Mahaboob Basha. The schedule property bearing Plot No.374 in T.S.No.241/1-3 at Bairagipatteda, Tirupathi was allotted to one S. Mahaboob Basha/Respondent No.1. Certain conditions were imposed in the order of allotment and in the event the conditions are not fulfilled by the allottees, the allotment of the property would be cancelled. 3 5. One of the conditions was that the houses should be constructed within three (3) months from the date of order of allotment and the cost of the site was to be deducted in one lump sum from the first instalment of loan if sanctioned and if there is no loan, the allottee can pay the cost of the land etc. on installment basis at the rate of Rs.150/- per month, which is to be deducted from the salary of the allottee. The further condition was that the allottee should not sell, mortgage or exchange the site allotted to him till he retires from service or 10 years from the date of allotment whichever is later. As per clause 3 of the allotment order the ownership right shall be vested in the T.T.D till the recovery of entire amount by the T.T.D and till the house plot is actually registered in the name of allottee. 6. In violation of the conditions, S. Mahaboob Basha sold a portion of the house site allotted to him to Smt.G. Devakamma. On noticing the violation of the condition the allotment in favour of S. Mahaboob Basha was cancelled vide Proceedings ROC. Rev.3/44404/94, dated 14.05.1998 and S. Mahaboob Basha was directed to handover the schedule property to the Surveyor of T.T.D. Properties Section within 7 days. Questioning the same, S. Mahaboob Basha filed O.S.No.663 of 1998 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi to declare that the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and ultravires the provisions of Endowments Act. 7. On contest, the said suit was dismissed on 14.08.2002 and was confirmed in A.S.No.83 of 2003 by the III Additional District Court, Tirupathi vide Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2005. As the allottee S. Mahaboob Basha and purchaser G. Devikamma had right over the schedule property, the O.A was filed for the above mentioned relief. 8. S. Mahaboob Basha filed his counter denying the plea taken in the suit by contending that a second appeal was preferred to the High Court. Further, it was pleaded that even after the cancellation proceedings, instalments were being deducted from the salary of the Respondent No.1 and that the construction over the schedule property was completed. 4 9. The Respondent No.2 i.e. purchaser also filed counter disputing the claim and that the Respondent No.2 also filed O.S.No.1542 of 2004 before the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi seeking permission on the ground that the T.T.D has no locus to initiate parallel enquiry. 10. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed:- 1) Whether the TTD-2nd Applicant is the owner of the schedule property and the Respondents are in unauthorized occupation as encroachers U/s 83 r/w 118 of the Act, 30/1987 and are liable to be evicted? 2) To what result? 11. In the course of trial, on behalf of T.T.D, one T. Rupendra Kumar was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 i.e. Copy of Proc.No.Rev.2/11191/83 issued by Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam in favour of R.1, Copy of cancellation Proc.No.Rev.3/44404/94 issued by Complainant that deducting the instalments from the salary of R.1, Copy of Judgment in A.S.No.83 of 2003 on the file of 3rd Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and Copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1542/04 on the file of 4th AJC Judge, seeking permanent injunction against Petitioner respectively were marked. 12. On behalf of the Respondents, Respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.7 i.e. CC of Judgment in O.S.No.265/1995 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge Court, Tirupathi filed by R1 treating as R2 tenant, CC of the Decree in O.S.No.165/1995 Prl. Jr. Civil Judge Court, Tirupathi filed by R.1, CC of Judgment in A.S.No.159/1999 filed by R1 on the file of 6th Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi, CC of Judgment in O.S.No.592/2001 on the file of the 1st Addl.Jr.District Judge, Tirupathi, CC of Judgment of O.S.No.1542/2004 on the file of 5th Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Tirupathi seeking permanent injunction against the Petitioner and CC of Decree of O.S.No.1542/2004 on the file of 5th Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Tirupathi respectively. 5 13. The Tribunal after examining the respective contentions held that the Respondents are encroachers under Section 83 of the Endowments Act and directed them to vacate the schedule property within a period of two (2) months and in the event of their failure, the T.T.D was authorized to vacate them with the help of police aid. 14. As regards the Respondent No.2, the Tribunal observed that it is left open to the Respondent No.2 to make a fresh representation to the TTD to regularise the sale of part of the scheduled plot in his favour subject to payment of present market rate of the site to the T.T.D. 15. Questioning the impugned order, the Respondent No.1 filed the C.M.A.No.213 of 2013 and the C.M.A.No.335 of 2014 was filed by the appellant (Kadiri Krishna Murthy) seeking leave of the Court. The reason for the appellant in C.M.A.No.335 of 2014 to file the appeal was that he had purchased the balance portion of the allotted property under a registered Sale Deed dated 10.11.2010 from S. Mahaboob Basha and constructed a building thereon and residing there with his family. This Court had granted leave vide Proceedings dated 01.11.2013. 16. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant and V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Standing counsel for T.T.D and J. Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 17. The Issue for consideration in the appeal is “whether in the facts and circumstances, the order of the tribunal warrants any interference?” 18. The appeals depend on the subsisting right of the S.Mahboob Basha, the original allottee over the scheduled property. It is not in dispute that the said property was allotted and subsequently cancelled for violation of allotment conditions by the TTD. Then Sri S. Mahaboob Basha filed O.S.No.663 of 1998 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi questioning the cancellation of scheduled plot and to declare that the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of 6 Endowments Act. The trial Court in O.S.No.663 of 1998 had framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the cancellation of allotment orders dated 14.05.1998 is valid? 2) Whether the Plaintiff followed the terms and conditions? 3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? 4) To what relief? 19. In the course of trial in that suit, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff therein and five documents were marked and on behalf of T.T.D, one witness was examined and 36 documents were marked. The trial Court after consideration of the respective pleadings and evidence on record dismissed the suit validating the cancellation order passed by the T.T.D dated 14.05.1998. 20. In the A.S.No.83 of 2003 (Ex.P.3) filed before III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi by S.Mahboob Basha, the issues were again reconsidered and the District Appellate Court also upheld the Judgement and Decree of the trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2005. As the cancellation of allotment was upheld by the civil court having jurisdiction over the subject issue at that relevant time and the said finding having attained finality, the allottee S. Mahboob Basha does not have any subsisting right over the schedule property and can only be termed as an encroacher as per Section 83 of the Act. 21. As regards the suit filed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. G. Devikamma, O.S.No.1542 of 2004 before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for permanent injunction against T.T.D, the said suit was also dismissed. The Respondent No.2 i.e. G. Devikamma and the appellant Kadiri Krishna Murthy having purchased through S. Mahboob Basha vide registered sale deeds dated 10.03.1989 and 10.11.2010 respectively cannot claim any right or locus over the scheduled property. 7 22. Since the appellant Kadiri Krishna Murthy in C.M.A.No.335 of 2014, is placed similar to the Respondent No.2 in the O.A i.e. G. Devikamma, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to extend the same liberty as was granted to the Respondent No.2 in the O.A i.e. a fresh representation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy to the T.T.D to regularise the sale of part of the scheduled plot in his favour on payment of present day market rate i.e. market value of the property on the date of consideration of representation to the T.T.D. The T.T.D is at liberty to accept or reject the representation. 23. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in C.M.A.No.213 of 2013 and C.M.A.No.335 of 2014 and the same are dismissed subject to the liberty granted to Appellant in C.M.A. No.335 of 2014. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 12.02.2025 IS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.NOs.213 of 2013 & 335 of 2014 Date: 12.02.2025 IS