APHC010398612007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21074/2007 Between: J. Krishna Murthy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Lok Adalat Bech Machlipatnam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K S MURTHY 2. . Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M BHASKARA LAKSHMI 2. V T M PRASAD 3. PULIPATI RADHIKA 4. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Smt. P. Radhika, learned Standing Counsel 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 appearing for the 2nd respondent-temple and Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 19. 2. The 2nd respondent-temple had filed O.S.No.79 of 1980 before the Learned District Munsiff, Machilipatnam, for declaration of title and removal of a Darga, which had come up in the temple land, admeasuring 28 Sq. yards, in July, 1979. This suit, after trial, had been dismissed by a Judgment and decree, dated 10.04.1995. It may also be noted that the defendants in the suit were various private individuals, apart from the Mujavar, representing the Darga. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 10.04.1995, the temple filed A.S.No.66 of 1995, before the Learned Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam. During the pendency of the said Appeal, a compromise is said to have been affected between the parties to the appeal and the same was placed before the Lok Adalat Bench constituted by the Andhra Pradesh District Legal Services Authority, Krishna District. Subsequently, the Lok Adalat recorded the said compromise and passed an award, dated 30.07.2007. Under this compromise, recorded in the award, the temple was declared to be the absolute owner of 413 Sq. yards on the northern side in the plan appended to the compromise in R.S.No.594/1 of Pedana. Similarly, the Muslim community was declared to be entitled to enjoy the southern side of 413 Sq. yards in the plan, as the absolute owners, including the Darga in 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 R.S.No.594/1 of Pedana. It was also agreed that the remaining site, in front of the temple, belongs to the temple. 4. This award came up for challenge, by way of this Writ Petition, by two petitioners, who have subsequently passed away. Thereafter the petitioners 3 to 6 were impleaded, by an order, dated 12.03.2025, of this Court, in I.A.No.1 of 2021. 5. The deceased 1st petitioner is the depondent to the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition. In this affidavit, the 1st petitioner contended that he was pursuing the suit and was examined as P.W.-1. The 1st petitioner also contended that the suit was dismissed on account of non-cooperation of the Endowments Department Officials and that a compromise was affected by the Manager of the temple, under pressure from the local leaders. The petitioners contend that the said award is vitiated on three grounds. Firstly, no compromise could have been affected, in relation to any Endowments land, in view of the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, dated 22.11.2005. Secondly, the suit in question was originally only for 28 Sq. yards, whereas, under the compromise the temple gave up 413 Sq. yards. Thirdly, the suit which was filed by the temple, represented by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, came to be compromised by the Manager/Executive Officer, without consulting the devotees or the Board or the petitioners 1 & 2, who had been pursuing this case. 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 6. The respondents 3 to 19, who were defendants in the suit, have resisted this contention, stating that the Darga had always been existing in the land in question and it was only reconstruction of the existing Darga, which had resulted in the suit being filed. The respondents 3 to 19 would also contend that the compromise had been affected to ensure communal harmony in the village and that such a claim made by them had also been given up. It is further contended that the settlement is to ensure that there was no claim by either side on the land and to give a quietus to the entire dispute. 7. Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 19 would also contend that no prejudice has been caused to the temple in as much as the temple’s right over 413 Sq. yards came to be recognised and honored by the defendants to the suit where as the entire 800 Sq. yards would have been under dispute. He would further submit that the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged, except on the ground of fraud and there is no case of fraud made out in the present case. The learned counsel also relies upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasasppa & Others vs. M. Mallamma & Others1. 8. The Manager/Executive Officer, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent, has also filed a counter affidavit and a Vacate Stay Petition against the interim orders granted by this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the compromise was for the benefit of the 1 2022 (4) ALD 49 (SC) 5 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 temple and was taken up on the suggestion made by the Learned District Judge, who was hearing the Appeal. He would submit that the compromise was affected only after obtaining necessary permissions from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. Further, this permission was granted on the basis of a legal opinion given by an Advocate, representing the temple, in the Appeal. The Manager would also contend that by virtue of giving up 413 Sq. yards of land, the temple was able to get a clear title to about Ac.1.00, which is in the enjoyment and possession of the temple right now. The Manager would contend that in such circumstances, there is no fraud of any nature and that the award does not require any interference. 9. Smt. P. Radhika, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that the suit was not dismissed on merits but was dismissed on the ground that such suits would have to be filed before the Endowments Tribunal, established under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (here-in-after referred to as “Endowments Act”). She would also submit that there were also other grounds on which the suit came to be dismissed but would submit that it was primarily on technicalities rather than merits of the case. She submits that in such circumstances, the Appeal itself cannot be maintained in as much as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred. 10. Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the entire exercise is vitiated by malafides and fraud. 6 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 He submits that the suit was filed on behalf of the temple by the Chairman of the Board. The suit and subseqently, the Appeal were proceeded by the petitioners, i.e., the devotees of the temple. However, the Manager of the temple, who is an employee of the Endowments Department, without informing any of the persons pursuing the case, had entered into a compromise, giving up 413 Sq. yards, when the suit itself was for 28 Sq. yards. The learned counsel would submit that the manner in which the compromise was affected and the award was passed, without informing any of the persons who were looking after the litigation would amount to clear suppression of information and that the entire process was done in a clandestine manner. He would further submit that any compromise affected in relation to any property of the Endowments institution, including the temple, would have to be in accordance with the procedure in Section 89 of the Endowments Act. He would submit that a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an order, dated 22.11.2005, in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, had specifically directed that no compromise could be recorded in relation to Endowment property, except with the leave of the High Court. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of conducting a compromise without obtaining such leave can only result in the award being set aside. He would submit that the contention of the petitioners that such permission was not taken has not been denied or disputed by the 2nd respondent. 11. A perusal of the material available before this Court would show that during the pendency of the Appeal, an opinion was sought from a 7 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 Learned Advocate appearing for the temple, as to whether a compromise would be a proper option. The Advocate, appearing for the temple, gave a legal opinion on 31.07.2007. In this legal opinion, the Learned Advocate stated that no material was being placed by the members of the Board to show that the temple has got title and that the temple is depending on the basis of possession by placing a decree passed in 1876. The opinion of the Advocate also shows that the suit was filed only to an extent of 30 Sq. yards and after dismissal of the suit, the members of the other community had raised a fence, enclosing about 800 Sq. yards, which was sought to be removed, resulting in communal tension in the area. The learned Advocate also stated that there is now a dispute that the 800 Sq. yards is being used as a public latrine for the past 11 years, before 2007, and that it would be better to settle the dispute amicably. 12. On the basis of the legal opinion of 31.01.2007, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada issued proceedings bearing Rc.No.A2/862/2007, dated 21.05.2007, permitting the Manager to act as per the legal opinion of the Advocate and to report the stage of the matter. The Manager, on the basis of this proceeding, had entered into a compromise, giving up 413 Sq. yards of land out of the 800 Sq. yards, which the learned Advocate has mentioned as disputed site. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, there is no allegation of the 800 Sq. yards and instead, the 2nd respondent took the stand that the relinquishment of 413 Sq. yards resulted in the temple obtaining clear title over Ac.1.00 of the land. It is clear that there is 8 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 a contradiction between the material placed before this Court and the statement in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. 13. The Endowment Act regulates the management of the Endowment property. Chapter 11 of the said act sets out the manner in which the property of the Endowment institutions is to be treated and how encroachments are to be removed. Section 89 of the Endowments Act sets out the procedure for how compromises are to be made in relation to the Endowments property. This provision is extracted herein below: “89. Compromise how to be made - (1) No suit, application or appeal pending before a court which relates to charitable or religious institution or endowment, shall be withdrawn or compromised by the trustee or other person incharge of the management of such institution or endowment except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. (2) Where the Commissioner considers that any claim, demand, or cause of action for suing in respect of the affairs, funds, or properties of the charitable or a religious institution or endowment shall, in the interests of the institution or endowment be compromised without instituting or without continuing any suit or other legal proceeding and if the other party to such suit or other legal proceedings is willing to enter into a compromise under the terms and conditions which the Commissioner considers acceptable in the interest of the institution or endowment, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass an order directing the trustee or 9 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 other person referred to in sub-section (1) to enter into such compromise.” 14. Under Section 89 of the Act, no compromise of a suit, application or an appeal, pending before a Court, can be done except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. No such sanction has been obtained in as much as there is no mention of any such sanction in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Apart from this, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an order, dated 07.06.2005, in W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005, in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, had passed an interim order, which is as follows: “ORDER: In the meantime, it is directed that no sales of Endowment lands shall be effected without the permission of thus court till further orders. No compromises shall be effected under Section 89 till further orders from this court with respect to Endowment lands. Pendency of this writ petition shall not be an impediment in any way for the State to proceed against the persons who may be involved in any offences relating to sale/compromise of the temple lands under any provision of the Endowments Act. They shall always be at liberty to revise the orders passed earlier, if warranted by law.” 15. However, there was a modification of this order on 22.11.2005 and the modified order is as follows: 10 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 “ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The implead petitioners case is that the interim order passed by this court in WPMP. No.15055 of 2005, dated 7.6.2005, has become an impediment for even genuine sales made by the Temples or Endowments. Said interim orders has already been clarified in the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.15795 & 15796 of 2005, dated 8.8.2005. Therefore, we modify the interim order passed by this court in WPMP.No.15055 of 2005 dt.7.6.2005, to the effect that there is no restriction imposed by this court for affecting sales by way of public auctions. However, it is made clear that the sales arising out of compromise or negotiations shall remain stayed in terms of the Interim order passed by this court in W.P.No.15055 of 2005 dated 7.6.2005.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the question of the circumstances in which the award passed by the Lok Adalat can be set aside, in K. Srinivasasppa (1-supra), had held as below: “28. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 equates an award of the Lok Adalat, to a decree of a Civil Court and imputes an element of finality to an award of compromise passed by the Lok Adalt. When the Lok Adalat disposed cases in terms of a compromise arrived at between 11 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 the parties to a suit, after following principles of equity and natural justice, every such award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties. Given the element of finality attached to an award of the Lok Adalat, it also follows that no appeal would lie, under Section 96 of the CPC against such award, vide P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) (NOC) 45 (Ker.). 29. While we recognise that a writ petition would be maintainable against an award of the Lok Adalat, especially when such writ petition has been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award of compromise, a writ Court cannot, in a casual manner, de hors any reasoning, set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. The award of the Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts reocrded in such award as being fraudulent arrived at. 30. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself”. Vide H.H. Sri Swamiji of Sri Admar Mutt v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept., (1979) 4 SCC 642, is also apposite.” 17. This Court is bound by the said principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. However, the above passages, which were relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 19 cannot be applicable to the present 12 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 case in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the question of whether an award can be set aside without any reasons being applied. 19. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others2, had held that though an award passed by the Lok Adalat amounts to fraud, the same cannot be challenged by way of an appeal and it is only a Writ Petition, which can be filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also cautioned that the grounds on which an award, passed by the Lok Adalat, can be set aside are highly restricted and is essentially on the grounds of fraud. 20. In the present case, the ground raised by the petitioners is that the award had been obtained behind the backs of the petitioners and other devotees and the same would amount to fraud. We have some difficulty in accepting the said contention, in as much as there has been violation of the procedure that needs to be followed. However, on the question of whether information has been given to the petitioners or not and whether that was necessary, is a question which would be difficult for this Court to answer, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, one aspect which remains is the fact that the compromise was arrived at, without obtaining the previous sanction of the Commissioner, under Section 89 of the Endowments Act. Apart from this, the compromise was entered into, against the peremptory 2 AIR 2017 SCC 4428 13 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 directions of this Court, mentioned above, that no compromise can be affected without the leave of the Court. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances, it must be held that the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be upheld in as much as the award has been passed without complying with the mandatory requirements of previous sanction of the Commissioner, Endowments, and the fact that the award has been passed in violation of the directions of this Court. 22. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat, dated 30.07.2007. This would mean that A.S.No. 66 of 1995 stands revived and would have to be heard by the Appellate Court. As far as the present situation is concerned, it would be left open to the Appellate Court to take a decision as to whether any order of status quo or injunction requires to be passed, pending the disposal of the appeal. As the appeal is of the year 1995, it would also be appropriate to direct the Appellate Court to dispose of the Appeal, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of this order. The Appellate Court would also consider the submission that it is only the Endowments Tribunal, which can hear this matter and not the Civil Court. 23. The observations made in this Judgment are only on the question of legality of the award and shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. 14 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 24. In view of the reservations expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would also be open to the petitioners, in the present Writ Petition, to implead themselves as plaintiffs in the suit. However, this will not be available to any other devotees of the temple. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 08.04.2025 MJA 15 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21074 of 2007 150 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21074 of 2007 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 08.04.2025 MJA