\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE K PRESENT ^ THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37624 OF 2018 Between: Velagala Chandra Sekhara Reddy, S/o.late Dani Reddy, aged 75 years R/o.D.No.10-15-2, Velagalavari Street, T.M.Padu, Tadepalllgudem W.G.Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 4. Sri Bala Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Rep. By its Executive Officer, T.M.Padu, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. 5. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments)-!I Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 6. Sri Prasara Vaidakagama Vedasastra Parishat, Rep. By Managing Trustee, Duvva, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction specially one in the nature of 1 Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No. 37021/82/Endts.11/2018, dt.8- 8-2018 Hssued by the 5th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of ; ^.provisioh of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Right (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003, misuse of the powers vested with the office of the 5th respondent and consequently set aside the proceedings Memo No. 37021/82/Endts.1 1/2018, dt.8-8-2018. A ■/ / r lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings vide Memo No. 37021/82/Endts.11/2018, dt.8-8-2dl8 issued by the 5th respondent and the consequential memo in Rc.No. L1/627947/2018 dated 10-9-2018 issued by the office of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: Sri Prasara Vaidakagama Vedasastra Parishat, Rep. By Managing Trustee, Duvva, West Godavari District. Petitioner/Respondent No.6 AND 1. Velagala Chandra Sekhara Reddy, S/o.late Dani Reddy, aged 75 years R/o.D.No.10-15-2, Velagalavari Street, T.M.Padu, Tadepalligudem W.G.Dist. -- Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 5. Sri Bala Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Rep. By its Executive Officer, T.M.Padu, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. 6. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments)-!! Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Respondents/Respondents No.1 to 5 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension order dated 08.11.2018 granted in the above writ petition WP.No. 37624/2018. Counsel for the PetitionenSRI T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3,5: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KANDA SRINIVASU (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS) Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI VENKAT CHALLA The Court made the following: ORDER r APHC010778052018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37624/2018 Between: ...PETITIONER Velagala Chandra Sekhara Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TVJAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VENKATCHALLA 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3.KANDA SRINIVASU SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (KS AND WG) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “ to issue writ, order or direction speciaiiy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018, dt.8-8-2018 issued by the 5 respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of provision of the A.P.Charitabie and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Andhra Pradesh Charitable and ’W 2 Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Right (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 misuse of the powers vested with the office of the respondent and consequently set aside the proceedings No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018,dt.8-8-2018....” Memo 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was worked as of the Trust Board of the 4*^ respondent temple for three terms and Lord Venkateswara. The 4'^ respondent temple is categorized as Chairman devotee of 6(b) temple having landed properties of nearly Ac.5.00 cents and getting The income derived out of agricultural income of Rs.5 to 6 lakhs per year, being used for day to day activities of the temple as also the salaries of the employees, etc. When the petitioner was working as Chairman of the Trust Board, a proposal was mooted to construct shopping complex in the lands is land abutting the main road belonging to the 4*^ respondent temple, so as to generate more income to the temple, so that the temple would be developed. After the term of the trust board was completed, the petitioner obtained under Section 17 of the Act and became permanent resident of exemption United States of America. While so, the 5'^ respondent issued Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018, dated 08.08.2018 directing the 2^^^ respondent to lease 1500 Square yards of the land in Survey No.46/1 for a period of eleven(ll) years to the 6^^ respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3 r This Court, vide order, dated 08.11.2018, has granted interim suspension of the proceedings vide Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/201 8, dated 08.08.2018 issued by the 5**^ respondent and also consequential proceedings vide Memo in Rc.No.L1/627947/2018, dated 10.09.2018 issued by Tahsildar. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the 5'^ respondent vide proceedings Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018, dated 08.08.2018 informed the 2"^^ respondent about the permission accorded to the 2"'^ respondent to allot an extent of land measuring 1500 Square yards in Survey No.46/1 at Tallamudunurupadu Village, Tadepalligudem Urban Mandal belongs to the 4^^ respondent-devasthanam in favour of respondent for establishing Veda Pathasala on annual rental of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is further contended that the impugned proceedings is the information sent to the 2'^^ respondent by the 5 respondent about the permission accorded by the Government for allotting 1500 Square yards on the ground that the 2^*^ respondent has no jurisdiction to enter into lease for a period of 11 years with the respondent is contrary to rules. In fact, the said communication to the 2^^ respondent only to take 4. necessary action for entering into lease deed with the respondent, but not nd respondent to enter into lease with the 6**^ given any direction to the 2 respondent. Once the land is demarcated, the 4^^ respondent would enter into the lease with the 6**^ respondent as per the Rule No.3(1) of the Rules. It is \. .\ \ further contended that, as per proviso to Rule 12 of Rules, the 2"^^ respondent being the competent authority for approval of the leases or licences otherwise than by way of public auction in alt cases irrespective of category of the institution and the value of the lease. Hence, if the 2"^^ respondent enters into a lease deed with the 6''^ respondent as alleged, there is no illegality as per the said proviso to Rule 12. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. Heard Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5; Mr.Kanda Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr.Venkat Challa, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 5. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 4^^ respondent is 6(b) institution and is under the control of Executive Officer and the Executive Officer alone is competent to enter into the leases after public auction as per the Rules. He further submits that Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Right (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003, especially Rules 3 and 4 mandates the procedure as to public auction, etc. He further submits that, as per Rule 3(1) of the Rules “All /eases or licenses shell be made by way of Tender-cum-Public Auction on Annual Advance Rental basis. / The Executive Authorities shall also call for tender or auction electronically if the value of the transaction exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. The E-tenders have to be opened after the completion of public auction and opening of regular tenders, if any”. But in the present case, the S**" respondent directed the 2"^^ respondent to enter into lease for a period of 11 years with 6^*^ respondent, which is contrary to the Rules i.e., public auction. He further submits that Rule 4(2)(A) adumbrates that before going for tender-cum-public auction, the Executive Authority has to fix up the upset price basing on the prevailing market conditions and the same shall be mentioned in the public notice. He further submits that, as per Section 4(2)(B) no lease or license of immovable property shall be granted for a period exceeding eleven years. The lease rental/license shall be enhanced by thirty percent once every three years over the existing lease rent or license fee. He further submits that the Executive Officer of the temple is the competent authority and the authority has to follow the procedure. But the 5'^ respondent misusing the powers, directed the 2 respondent to enter into lease with 6^^ respondent for a period of eleven years and fixed the annual rent. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. nd respondent while Per Contra, learned counsel for the 6 reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, as per Sub-Rule (J)(ii) of Rule 4 that, in case of reputed Hindu Religious 7. 6 Organisations which are specifically propagating/goals of Sanathana Dharma ^ (Hinduism) will be given or extended, otherwise than by way of public auction on the request of such organisation. This lease/licence shall be either free or nominal rent/fee. This is so as such organisations are undertaking a Dharmik activity which is also major goals of all Temples or Hindu Endowments. In the present case, the respondent requested for allotment of 1500 Square yards of land on lease for a period of 28 years for construction of a school to propagate and also to educate the students in Vedas and also Smarthas. On considering the same, the S**" respondent rightly granted permission for giving lease by requesting the 2"^^ respondent to take necessary action in this regard. Hence, there is no embargo under the Rules or under the Act to grant lease to the 6*^ respondent. Therefore, learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly, the 4‘^ respondent temple is categorized as 6(b) temple having landed properties of nearly Ac.50.00 cents. The 5‘^ respondent vide proceedings Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018, dated 08.08.2018 accorded permission to the 2"'' respondent to allot an extent of land measuring 1500 Sq.yards in Survey No.46/1 at Tallamudunurupadu Village, Tadepalligudem Urban Mandal, West Godavari district belongs to the 4*^ respondent-temple 9. in 7 favour of the 6 respondent for establishment of Veda Patasala on annual rent of Rs. 10,000/- on lease basis for a period of eleven (11) years. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per G.O.Ms.No.426 10. Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated 09.11.2015 reads as follows; “1. In Rule 3 of the said Rules, the heading and Sub-Rule (1), shall be substituted as follows: 3. Mode of Confirmation of Lease or License irghts: (1) All leases or licenses shall be made by way of Tender- cum-Public Auction on Annual Advance Rental basis. The Executive Authorities shall also call for tender or auction electronically if the value of the transaction exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. The E-tenders have to be opened after the completion of public auction and opening of regular tenders, if any. 2. In rule 4 of the said Rules, the entire Sub-Rule (2) shall be substituted as follows: (2)(J) Not withstanding anything stated above. In case of the public sector undertakings. Governmental Organizations, Scheduled Banks etc., the lease or license rights may be given or extended otherwise than by way of Public auction on the request of such organization or department with appropriate rent or fee with invariably suitable enhancement of rent or fee as may be decided by the Commissioner. In the case of reputed Hindu Religious Organizations which are specificaliy propoagating/goals of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) (eg: book shop selling exclusively Hindu Religious Books etc.,) will be given or extended otherwise than by way of Public Auction on the request of such organization. This lease/license shall be either free or on nominal rent/fees. This is so as such organizations are undertaking a Dharmika activity which is also major goals of all Temples or Hindu Endowments. ” II. / / I Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, it appears that, as per G.O.Ms.No.426, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 09.11.2015, the leases or licenses shall be made by way of Tender-cum-Public Auction on Annual Advance Rental basis. However in the present case, the 5 11. th 8 th nd respondent to enter into lease with the 6 respondent directed the 2 respondent for a period of eleven (11) years and fixed the annual rent, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018, dated 08.08.2018 issued by the 5*^ respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Memo No.37021/82/Endts.ll/2018, dated 08.08.2018 issued by the 5^^ respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to conduct an auction for the lands, admeasuring an extent of 1500 square yards in Survey No.46/1 at Tallamudunurupadu Village, Tadepalligudem Urban Mandal, West Godavari district, and allot the lands for the successful bidder in the auction. No costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 13. stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT RE^STRAR SECffeN OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Krishna Dist. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Eluru W G Dist. 4. The Executive Officer, Sri Bala Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam T.M.Padu, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. //TRUE COPY// To, Government, Revenue (Endowments)-!! 5. The Specie! Chief Secretary to Department, Secretariat, 6. The Managing Trustee, Sri Prasara Amaravathi, Veiagapudi, Guntur District. Vaidakagama Vedasastra Parishat Duvva, West Godavari District. 7. One CC to SRI. T. V. JAGGI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 8. Two CCs to GP FOR [OUT] 9. One CC to SRI. VENKAT CHALLA, Advocate [OPUC] KANDA SRINIVASU (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS) 10. OneCCto SR!. Advocate [OPUC] 11. Three C.D.Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.37624of2018 <= 10 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ a ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS