[3526 ] COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE IN THE HIGH ^4c>: ^ V c~W PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28941 OF 2023 Between; Radha Krishna Reddy, S/o Late M. Rami Reddy, Aged about 50 Residing at D.No. 6-126, 1. M. years, Occ. Cultivation and Business Akkarampalli Village, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 2. Muddu Reddygari Pullareddy, S/o M. Rami Reddy, Aged about 55 Occ. Cultivation and Business, Residing at D.No. 6-127, years Akkarampalli Village, Tirupati, Tirupati District ...PETITIONERS AND Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Buildings,Velagapudi, 1. The State Of Endowments Amaravathi. Secretariat Department of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Secretariat 2. The State Administration Buildings,Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Development, Urban and 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, , (ENDTS.II) Department, Secretariat 4. The Commissioner, Guntur District. 5. The Assistant Commissioner Chittoor District. 6. Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt Holding its office at Mutts Tirupati District. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Poddakakani, Guntur, Endowments Department Endowments Department, Chittoor, Represented by its Mahanth Building at D.No. 122, Gandhi Arjundoss, Road, Tirupati, T,>upati Urban Development,. Authority, (TUDA), Rep by i.s Vice hairman and Managing Director, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 8. Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution by its Chairman and Managing Company Limited Director, (APSPDCL), Represented Tirupati, Tirupati District. 9- The Tirupati Municipal Corporation Tirupati District. . Rep by its Commissioner, Tirupati, 10. The Assistant Executive Tirupati, Tirupati District. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban, The Station House Officer Engineer, Rural Division, Mangalam 11. Tirupati, Tirupati District. Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, 12. Tirupati District. 13. yel"'ocTb Pathini M P Residing at Ayyannagaripalli hiputtur Post, Vadamalapeta Mandal 72 Village, > Tirupati District. 14. M. Had Prasad Reddy, S/o Late years, Occ. Business M. Gangi Reddy, Aged about Remulavari Temple 45 Residing Near Sri Akkarampalli Village, Thimmanaidupalem (Post), Tirupati, Tirupati District. The Mandal Legal Services Committee, Tirupati,Tirupati District. 15. Respondent No.15 was impleaded as per c.o.dt.10.09.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.28941 of 2023. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus the part of the Respondents No. 7 and action against the Respondents A. Declaring the inaction on not initiating appropriate 9 in m<y unauthorized and illegal No. 13 and 14 for the ongoing 6th Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt i.e in the constructions Respondent’s Agriculture Property an centsinSy.No. 80/1 situated i Ttrupati, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor 1.44 extent of Ac. Thimmanaidupalem Village in Accounts District). B. Declaring the Lok-Adalat of 2005 Award dt. 24.08.2005 in O.S.No. 746 Civil Judge, Tirupati dt. 07.10.1994” IS obtained by parties thereon, necessary party and against the Andhra and Hindu Religious Institution on the file of Additional Junior basing on the “Agreement of Sale playing fraud, in collusion between the non- Joginder of proper and Pradesh Charitable Endowments Act, 1987 s and and in consequential to set aside the in O.S.No. 746 of 2005 on the Judge, Tirupati. Lok-Adalat Award dt. 24.08.2005 i file of Additional Junior Civil C. Directing the Respondents No. unauthorized and illegal 1 to 12 to Remove the ongoing the Sri Swamy constructions in Hathiramji Mutt i.e 6th Respondent ’s agriculture property an extent of Ac. Thimmanaidupalem Village Accounts, (Erstwhile Chittoor District) forthwith. 1.44 cents Sy.No. 80/1 in situated in Tirupati, Tirupati District D. Direct the Respondent No. Property from the Dt Petitioner Legal Heir of the “ Permanent Lease of the 1-44 cents 6 to Receive Lease Amount for the being Cultivating Tenant and Mudhireddygari Thambireddy being agriculture property an extent of Ac. in Sy.No. 80/1 situated i - in Thimmanaidupalem Village Accounts, Tirupat, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 7 to 12 to restrain the ongoing unauthorized and illegal constructions in the Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt i.e 6‘^ Respondent's agriculture property an extent of Ac. 1.44 cents in Sy.No. 80/1 situated in Thimmanaidupalem Village Accounts, Tirupati, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District) forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i Court may be pleased to implead the'The Committee, Tirupati,Tirupati, Tiruoati District praying that in the m support of the petition, the High Mandal Legal Services as Respondent No. 15 in W.P.No, 28941 of 2023, I.A.No, 1 of 2023 in W.P.No. 28941 and all ifs consequential proceedings before this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the Petltloner{s):SRI. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KARRI KALYANA SC FOR TUDA DURGA PRASAD, Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKATA RAMA APSPDCL RAO, SC FOR ( Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. VENGALA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI Counsel for the Respondents: I ! The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Tariada Rajasekhar Rao) The present Writ Petition is filed succinctly for the following reliefs: A. To Declare the inaction on the part of the Respondent Nos.7 and 9 in initiating appropriate action against the Respondent Nos.13 and 14 for the ongoing unauthorised and illegal constructions in land belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Matt-6‘^ Respondent’s Agriculture Property in an extent of Acs.1.44 cents in Sy.No.80/1 situated in Thimmanaidupalem Village Accounts, Tirupati, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District). B. To set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 24.08.2005 in O.S.No.746 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, on the grounds: that the award was obtained by the 13th respondent by playing fraud and there is collusion in between the parties thereon and for non-joinder of proper and necessary party. C. To remove the unauthorised and illegal constructions in Sy.No.80/1 for an extent of Acs.1.44 cents situated in Thimmanaidupalem village Accounts, Tirupati, and the property belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and the mutt has not taken any action. D. To direct the 6th respondent to receive lease amount for the property from the 1st petitioner being cultivating tenant for an extent of Acs.1.44 cents in Sy.No.80/1 situated in Thimmanaidupalem village, and for other orders. 3 Precisely, the case of the writ petitioners is that the land in an Sy.No.80/1 which is situated in Thimmanaidupalem village Accounts, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District) belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt (hereinafter called ‘Mutt’), arrayed as respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition, permanently leased to one Mudhireddygari Thambireddy (none other than the grandfather of writ petitioners and 14*^ respondent) about 75 years back. The said Mudhireddygari Thambireddy had five sons, viz., (1) M.Rami Reddy (father of the writ petitioners), (2) M.Chenga Reddy (paternal father of writ petitioners), (3) M.Krishna Reddy, (4) M.Venkata Reddy and (5) M.Govinda Reddy, and the said Mudhireddygari Thambireddy died in the year 1979, leaving behind his sons and the said property belongs to Mudhireddygari Thambireddy was divided among his sons, vide family partition deed dated 16.04.1970. In the said partition, the property in Sy.No.80/1 in an extent of Acs.1.44 cents fell to the share of M.Rami Reddy, who is the elder son of Mudhireddygari Thambireddy and the petitioners’ family members continued in the property along with the other properties and duly cultivating the said property. 2. extent of Ac. 1.44 cents in as was 4 Be that as it may, the petitioners came to know that the father of 3. respondent No.14, i.e., M.Chenga Reddy, who is none other than the second son of Mudhireddygari Thambireddy, and grand-father of the writ petitioners, made an application to the Mutt-6th respondent, falsely representing that he is a landless poor person and accordingly he obtained an order as tenant vide proceedings in RC.BI/3000/2003- 1 dated 05.08.2004 from the respondent No.5, behind the back of the petitioners herein by changing the address for correspondence and played fraud by cancelling the permanent lease granted in the name of the grand-father of the writ petitioners, i.e., Mudhireddygari Thambireddy, and obtained permanent lease in Sy.No.80/1 in an extent of Acs.1.44 cents, which land is being cultivated by the writ petitioners. After he being granted permanent lease, he made an application to respondent Nos.5 and 6 making a proposal to sell the aforesaid land. Later, the petitioners came to know through a caveat petition that 4. was filed by respondent No. 13 the fact that M.Chenga Reddy, son of Mudhireddygari Thambireddy, on 07.10.1994 made agreement of sale deed in favour of respondent No.13, i.e., M.Nadamuni Reddy, son of M.Ramakrishna Reddy. Failing to execute the sale deed by M.Chenga Reddy, the respondent No. 13 has filed a suit for specific performance 5 and at the intervention of the elders, the same was referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat has passed Award dated 24.08.2005 for the property of respondent No.6-Matt in Sy.No.80/1 for an extent of Ac. 1.44 cents and the said Award obtained by the respondent No. 13 was fraudulent and illegal and the said Award is not binding on the petitioners, as the petitioners are the permanent lease holders of the aforesaid property. Hence, they were constrained to file the present Writ Petition to set aside the Award of the Lok Adalat dated 24.08.2005, as the respondent Nos. 13 and 14 have obtained the said Award illegally, as the respondent No.6-Matt has failed to protect the Mutt’s lands which are leased to the grandfather of the writ petitioners, i.e. Mudhireddygari Thambireddy. 5. It is also the further case of the petitioners herein that despite several representations made to the authorities, while the respondent No.13 is proceeding with the illegal constructions without obtaining any building plan and permissions from the competent authorities, there is no action from the concerned authorities. Hence, the petitioners herein made a representationto the authoritiesto take action against the illegal constructions by the respondent No. 13 without any right or title over the property. Thereafter, the respondent No.6-Mutt made a complaint to 6 respondent Nos.7 and 9 about the in the property and basing upon the said Nos. 13 and 14 were directed not to proceed with further the authorities allow the respondent Nos. 13 and 14 to ongoing unauthorised constructions representation, the respondent constructions. If proceed with the construction, it will cause prejudice to the petitioners herein, as they are the enjoyers and the permanent lease holders of the property. There is as such the petitioners have under Article 226 of the as the petitioners having no other alternative remedy, except to approach this court accordingly sought the aforesaid reliefs. no action from the concerned authorities invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction Constitution of India 6. Heard Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.V.S.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.6-Mutt, Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 13, learned counsel for M/s. appearing for respondent No. 14 and Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 15. OMR Law Firms, 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. \/s. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others reported in (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1, for the proposition that when a judgment and decree 7 to be treated as nullity and can be Also relied on another in A.V.Papayya Sastry and and others reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court obtained by fraud, it is questioned even in collateral proceedings. was judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court others \/s. Govt, of A.P. Cases 221, for the proposition that fraud vitiates all judicial acts whether decree obtained by fraud in rem or in personam and the judgment or has to be treated as non-est and nullity, whether by Court of first prayed to set aside the Award instance or by the final Court. Hence, passed by the Lok Adalat dated 24.08.2005 filed its counter, denying all the the Writ Petition. It is additionally pleaded The respondent No.6-Mutt 8. specific averments made in that the writ petitioners are not at all in the possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.80/1 at any point of time. The writ petitioners in Nos. 13 and 14 by creating forged collusion with the respondent document filed the present Writ Petition to get relief for unjust judgment with an ulterior motive to grab the valuable land of the respondent No.6- Mutt. Additionally it is stated the land belongs to mutt and the same of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and registered as per Section 43 Hindu Religious Institutions was and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Endowments Act’), and it also 9 to stall the illegal unauthorised prayed to direct the respondent Nos.7 constructions in the Mutt land. to 9. The respondent No.6-Mutt Division Bench of the High Court for s counsel relied on the judgment of a the State of Telangana in Anu reported in (2022) 3 ALT 69, was passed by the Lok Adalat present Writ Petition is filed in the year 2023 and Pharma (P) Ud.. Vs. State of Tetangana and contended that the Award 24.08.2005 and the there is a delay of 18 explanation for such delay and the applicable to the present on years in approaching the Court and there iIS no provisions of the Limitation Act proceedings and the petitioners herein have not stated any reason in approaching the Court after 18 are years. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 10. Respondent No.13-M.Nadamuni Reddy, who filed O.S.No.746 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, TIrupati, against M.Chenga Reddy, filed counter, denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, inter alia, it is specifically stated that he entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the property with M, Chenga Reddy who intended to sell the property for a valid sale consideration and since M.Chenga Reddy has sale deed, he not come forward to execute the regular was (respondent No.13) 9 constrained to file suit O.S.No.746 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for specific performance of sale and subsequently due to the intervention of the elders, he settled the amicably and the Lok Adalat has passed the Award on was issue 24.08.2005. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Respondent No.14-M.Hari Prasad Reddy, son of M.Gangi Reddy, filed counter, denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and inter alia it is contended under Section 82 of the Endowments Act a landless poor person holding the land of the institution or endowment on lease is entitled to purchase and the said proposition was confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3626 and 3788/1996 dated 29.08.2001 and upheld the constitutional validity of the act and after all the legal formalities it was finalised to sell the land to paternal grandfather of the respondent No.14, that the Administrative Officer of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Matt, Tirupati, addressed the Commissioner, Endowments Department, for issuance of orders permitting to finalise the sale proposal to sell away the land measuring Ac.1.44 cents in Sy.No.80/1 of Thimmanaidupalem village, and, in turn, the Commissioner has addressed a letter in Rc.No.M2/21123/2005 dated 26.05.2005 to the Secretary to the 11. away a letter to necessary 10 Government of Andhra Pradesh to issue necessary orders permitting to finalise the sale proposals of sale of the subject land. As the sale proposal was not finalised by the authorities, the grandfather of respondent No.14 has submitted a representation dated 22.11.2007 to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and, he in turn, directed the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-ll, Tirupati, to attend before the Commissioner, Endowments Department. Accordingly, the Matt was permitted to take further action in consonance with the observations of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.V.M.No.1535 of 2006 and W.A.M.P.No.258 of 2006 dated 07.09.2006. Till today, there is no action from the competent authorities. Meanwhile, father of the respondent No.14 Mr. M.Gangi Reddy, the only son of M.Chenga Reddy died in the year 2007 and M.Chenga Reddy also died on 12.04.2011. Thereafter, the respondent No.14, who is the sole legal heir of M.Chenga Reddy has purchased the subject property. Before purchasing of the subject property on the death of M.Chenga Reddy by respondent No. 14, the father of the 1st petitioner and his family members have partitioned the property and in which the subject property is not partitioned which fact shows that the family of the petitioners never treated the subject land as the property of the joint family, as they have partitioned the property on 18.06.2001. 12. It is also denied that the respondent No.14 is proceeding with the construction and except temporary structures and no permanent structures are being raised in the subject land. It is also specifically pleaded that the partition deed dated 18.06.2001 is inadmissible in law as it is un-registered and there are disputed questions with regard to the right and title over the subject property and this Court cannot adjudicate upon the disputed facts raised in the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After following the procedure as contemplated under Section 82 of the Endowments Act, an order was passed in favour of respondent No.14 on 05.08.2004 and the said order has become final and subsequently, a portion of the subject land was acquired and in the said acquisition notification, the name of the grandfather of respondent No.14 is mentioned. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition on the aforesaid grounds. 13. Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.15-Mandal Legal Services Committee, Tirupati, has drawn our attention to the following judgments:- 12 (1) Vadiga Amose Vs. Vadiga Anjaneyulu and others 2014(2) ALD 676 (DB); (2) Nellore Sujanamma Vs. AWpallt Nagi Reddy and others 2018(1) ALD 24 (DB); (3) Chaluvadi Murali Krishna and another Vs. District Legal Sen/Ices Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole, rep. by 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat and others ALT 10 (DB): reported in reported in reported in 2013(2) (4) Smt. Gandhavarapu Chandramani @ Kasi Chandramani Vs. The Lok Adalat Bench, Visakhapatnam, represented by Chairman Presiding Judge in W.P.No.30181 of 2018 dated 13.09.2023 and , wherein one of us. i.e., Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao is one of the party. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 15 contends principle enunciated in the aforesaid judgments is that the Award passed in the Lok Adalat can be challenged by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India only by parties to the settlement and not by any one else and on only limited grounds, such as the passing of award without settlement settlement is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is a disputed fact and ordinarily a third party cannot challenge the Award in a Writ Petition even if such Award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit or proceeding for necessary redressal and that the the or that 13 seek appropriate decree of declaration by filing a suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law. Though a Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring evidence (voluminous evidence), third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in the 15. judgment of Nellore Suganamma vs. Attipalli Nagi Redy and others reported in 2018 (1) ALD 24 (DB) after considering several judgments has propounded a finding extracted hereunder: A mere ipse dixit statement alleging coercion or fraud, however strong it is, cannot find acceptance by a Court of Law, because 16. assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. Further a fact asserted by a party and denied by its opponent becomes a disputed question of fact and, therefore, the burden lies on the party to prove the said fact, which it has to be decided by the competent civil Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 15 also relied on the 17. judgment of a Full Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 14 P.V.Narayana Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and others reported in 2013(4) ALD 386 (FB), judgment of a Division Bench this Court in Dowlath Bee and others Vs. T.MahaboobBasha and others in W.P.No.13558 of 2023 dated 31.07.2024, and also another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 4 S.C.R. 241 = 2024 INSC 286, as also on the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11093 of 2021 dated 24.02,2022, for the proposition that the delay defects equity and equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law. Though there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person aggrieved should approach the Court without loss of time and in case, there is a delay, then explanation should be offered for the said delay. The Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile Fligh Court in P.V.Narayana Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and others reported in 2013(4) ALD 386 (FB) referred supra, after considering the decisions of the Flon’ble Supreme Court, has summarised the principles which reads 18. thus: 15 1) Though no period of limitation is prescribed for the writ Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to file a writ petition aggrieved should approach the Court without loss of time. In appropriate cases, where there is delay and the same has properly been explained with cogent reasons, Court may condone the delay as an exception to meet the ends of justice. But, it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. (2) Courts have evolved rules of self-imposed restraints or fetters where the High Court may not enquire into belated stale claim and deny relief to a party if he is found guilty of laches. One who is tardy, not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to relief under Article 226. (3) No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application and every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (4) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper a person or 16 exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (5) There is no lower limit or upper limit and it will all depend what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose. (6) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (7) Where there is remiss or negligence on the part of a party approaching the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, in such cases, it would not be proper to enforce the fundamental right. As a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of mandamus. (8) There is no waiver of fundamental right. But, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction Court can take into account delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ Court. (9) Though the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 in its discretion grant relief in cases where the fundamental rights are violated, but, in such cases also. High Court, to meet the ends of justice, shall refuse to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of a party who has been on 17 guilty of laches and where there are other relevant inappropriate to circumstances which indicate that it would be exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. 19. In the present case, the Award was passed on 24.08.2005 and the present Writ Petition is filed in the year 2023, after lapse of 18 on the ground that the petitioners years, came to know about the Lok Adalat caveat petition filed by the respondent No. 13 in Award and the O.S.No.746 of 2005. 20. No information about Lok Adalat Award mentioned in the caveat petition, the purpose of filing the present Writ Petition delay, in approaching the Court assailing the Lok Adalat dated 24.08.2005 is The said defence was taken only for to cover up the lacuna of Award. 21. Now the point for consideration is, whether the Writ Petition i maintainable to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the submissions made by the learned is the contention of the writ petitioners obtained the Lok Adalat Award fraudulently IS 24.08.2005. 22. counsel for the writ petitioners, it that the respondents have 18 claim that the respondent No.6 extent of Ac.1.44 cents in Survey The writ petitioners specifically 23. mutt granted a permanent lease for an No.80/1 to Mudhireddygari Thambireddy, the grandfather of the the five sons of Mudhireddygari who is the father petitioners. Following a partition among Thambireddy, this land was allocated to the first son be traced from the of the petitioners. And the right of the petitioners can dated 13.04.1970. The petitioners have unregistered partition deed rent to the respondent No.6 since been cultivating the land and paying mutt. Meanwhile, the second son, M.Chenga Reddy, who is also the allegedly obtained a lease fraudulently paternal uncle of the petitioners, by claiming to be a land less poor authorities as lessee without any of the original lease. Furthermore, M, Chenga Reddy is said to have and obtained declaration from notification regarding the termination No.13. The actions of M. Chenga detailed in the sold the property to the respondent and the respondent No.14, Hari Prasad Reddy, as fraudulent. The sale agreement dated favour of the 13th Reddy writ petition, are characterized as 7 10.1994, executed by M.Chenga Reddy in asserted to be collusive. Nadhamuni Reddy, is contend that the suit O.S.No.746 of 2005 for referred to the Lok Adalat, and the respondent, M. Additionally, the petitioners which was specific performance 19 subsequent award passed on 24.08.2005, were also collusive in nature. The petitioners pray that the award dated 24.08.2005, be annulled cancelled. or 24. The claim of the petitioners has been explicitly denied, leading to the contention that the writ petition should be dismissed since the petitioners are third parties to the award. As per the arguments presented by the petitioners, the case involves disputed facts that require the examination of evidence. Therefore, it is argued by the respondents’ counsel for dismissal of the writ petition. It is pertinent to note that the property in Survey No. 801, measuring Ac.1- 44 cents, is owned by the respondent No.6, who has not acknowledged the execution of a permanent lease in favor of Mudhireddygari Thambireddy, the grandfather of the petitioners. 25. An unregistered partition deed is not admissible in evidence and to show the respective shares of the parties as declared by the document. And the document doesn’t disclose how did the Mudhireddygari Thambireddy got the property. The lease-deed relied by the writ petitioners is permanent lease or lease in perpetuity, it is not the pleading of the writ petitioner it is oral lease. In the absence of such pleading a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any on 20 term exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument under section 107 of Transfer of Property Act or under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act as the property transfer to the lessee. Therefore, such an instrument cannot establish a lease due to these legal inhibitions. 26. In view of the provisions contained in Section 2(7) of the Registration Act "lease" to cultivate or occupy, and an agreement to lease and beyond one year period, the same is compulsorily registrable. According to the writ averments, it is not a registered document. So, it is a void document and cannot be looked into for any purpose and the same can be looked into for any purpose. But the fact that the lease provided that the lessee could continue in possession of the property so long as he paid the stipulated rent did not mean that the lease was for perpetuity. It would usually be regarded as a lease for an indefinite period and as such for the lessee's lifetime. That even for assumption that a lease is permanent on the death 27. of the lessees the lease terminates unless, there is covenant in the lease deed that the leasehold rights would enure to the benefit of his 21 heirs, writ petitioners have not shown any such clause by filing the lease document. 28. The writ petitioners have not filed any evidence to put forth their contention that the lease is permanent lease and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 mutt. The mutt has not admitted any land lord and tenant relation in between the mutt and the writ petitioners. To substantiate there is oral lease, evidence is required/essential. This Court under Article 226 Constitution of India cannot record evidence. Hence as rightly pleaded by the respondents, the civil court is competent to record evidence either to establish there is lease or the award that is passed the Lok Adalat is in collusive and obtained fraudulently. Invariably evidence is required, in the absence of evidence this court cannot set aside the Lok Adalat award. 29. When the respondent No..13 is constructing a building on land that was leased to their grandfather, the petitioners have not objected filed a suit even assuming that the there is no knowledge about the passing of the Lok Adalat award which contradicts the claim that the land was given a permanent lease. All of these claims are made for the purpose of filing this writ petition. or 22 The Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 30. Constitution of India should be circumspect before issuing any Mandamus or directions and has to see whether any documentary evidence is required and should be proved. Rule 6(a)(1) of the Writ Rules, specifically envisages that all the documents shall be accompanied along with the writ affidavit. The writ petitioners have not filed the lease deed. When disputed questions of fact involve in the writ petition, the High Court should refrain from deciding the issue in the writ petition. Admittedly whether any permanent lease was executed by the respondent mutt and whether there is any fraud played by respondentNos.13 and 14 requires evidence. Admittedly the writ petitioners are not party to the suit or Lok Adalat award. In order to prove the contentions raised in the writ petition, evidence is required. And the judgments relied by the 15th respondent establishes the same. 6' Under Rule 5 (g) of the Writ Proceedings Rules of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, writ petitioner cannot seek more than one prayer unless the other prayers are consequential. In the present case the petitioners have pleaded many reliefs which are inconsequential. As per the pleadings, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main relief is to set aside the Lok Adalat award and the consequential 31. 23 reliefs are to direct the 6th respondent to receive the rent by the 6th respondent and the other relief is to direct the authorities not to allow respondent to proceed with the construction and to demolish the construction made by the 13'*^ respondent which are inconsequential relief to the relief prayed to main relief to set aside the Lok Adalat award. the 13 It is well settled, when disputed facts are involved, the writ court should refrain from adjudication and should relegate the parties to the competent court and the writ petitioners assert that the 13th respondent fraudulently obtained the Lok Adalat award. To determine the existence of any fraud, evidence is necessary. Additionally, it needs to be established whether a lease was executed by the 6^'' respondent in of the grandfather. This determination should be made by presenting evidence before a competent civil court. In the absence of the relief sought by the writ petitioners cannot be granted. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent Court, referenced by the writ petitioners consists of permanent lease or lease in perpetuity; the petitioners do not claim it to oral lease. Without this assertion, any lease of immovable 32. has favour such evidence. 33. The lease be an 24 property that lasts for more than one year, or is established on a yearly basis, must be executed through a registered instrument, as stipulated under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, which governs property transfers to the lessee. Therefore, such an instrument cannot establish a lease due to these legal inhibitions. 34. As rightly contested by the learned counsel for the respective respondents, a disputed question of fact is involved regarding the lease and title and the petitioners are claiming the property on the basis of the permanent lease granted by the respondent No.6-Mutt. But the petitioners herein have not filed any lease deed along with the Writ Petition. As per the assertions in the writ affidavit and in view of the provision contained in Section 2(7) of the Registration Act, lease to cultivate or occupy and an agreement to lease beyond one year like is compulsorily registrable. According to writ averments, it is not a registered document. So, it is a void document and it cannot be looked into for any purpose. The lessee can be continued in possession of the property so long as the lessee paid the stipulated rent and it did not mean that the lease was perpetual. It is usually recorded as a period for indefinite and such of the lessee’s lifetime. On the death of lessee, the 25 leasehold rights for remained period would enure for the benefit of his heirs, unless the document stipulation over and that in such an event the right of the lessee was not for the benefit of the successors. The writ petitioners have not shown any such clause by filing the 35. said document. Hence, the contention of the writ petitioners that there is permanent lease granted in favour of Mudhireddygari Thambireddy cannot be accepted in the absence of the document. There are several disputed questions involved in the present Writ Petition. As rightly contested by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners herein have to approach a competent Civil Court for their relief claiming When the the property against the respondent Nos. 13 and 14. respondent No. 13 is constructing a building on the land that was leased to the grandfather of the petitioners, the writ petitioners have not objected or filed any suit to protect their right, when there is permanent lease. This contradicts the claim that the land was given a permanent lease. All the contentions are made for the purpose of filing this Writ Petition and the petitioners have not filed a suit or initiated any legal proceedings when the respondents are constructing a building on the land that was given lease to their grandfather. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners sought to give explanation as to why the Lok Adalat 26 questions of facts are involved and there is a delay in filing the .Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 38. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT ©Officer To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, State Of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (ENDTS.II) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 4. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur District. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor, Chittoor District. and Urban Secretariat Buildings, Peddakakani, Guntur . (^J 6. Sri Mahanth Arjundoss, Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Holding its office at Mutts Building at D.No. 122, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 7. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Tirupati Urban Development Authority, (TUDA), Tirupati, Tirupati District. 8. The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), Tirupati, Tirupati District. 9. The Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 10. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Division, Mangalam, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 11. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 12. The Station House Officer, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 13. The Mandal Legal Services Committee, Tirupati,Tirupati District. 14. One CC to SRI. O UDAYA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 15. One CC to SRI KARRI KALYANA DURGA PRASAD, SC FOR TUDA [OPUC] 16. One CC to SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO, SC FOR APSPDCL [OPUC] 17. One CC to SRI P. VENGALA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI [OPUC] 18. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 19. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIAPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 20. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 21. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 22. Three CD Copies -3, HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.28941 of 2023 ^ 2 2 AUG 2025 '^*vCjtfr»trtS«tj#BxV ^'^sseiisas^ & THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS