APHC010085702015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30703/2015 Between: Smt. K.padmavathi (died) , W/o Dr.k.seshaiah, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS) 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 an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep.by its Principal Secretary in passing order vide Memo.No.36790/Endts-II/A1/2013, dated 28-08-2015 2 vacating the stay orders granted by Government in Memo.No.23254/Endts.II/A1/2012, dated 26-05-2012 staying the public auction notice dated 03-05-2012 issued by the 5th respondent relating to the schedule mentioned property admeasuring an extent of 508.4 sq.yards in Door No.158, Theerdha-katta street, Tirupathi, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was entered into a lease agreement with the trustee of Sri Kandala Govindacharyulu Trust for a period of 35 years and the lease was to continue from 18.03.1993 to 17.03.2018 through a registered deed with the provision of enhancing the rent once in ten years and originally the rent was fixed @ Rs.1200/- per month and consequently Rs.1500/- and Rs.2000/- for the remaining 15 years. The petitioner herein constructed a building and there are also certain tenants in the said building. The construction of building as well as the existence of certain tenants was to the knowledge of the Department and all these actions were undertaken strictly in conformity with registered deed entered upon between the petitioner and the Trust. Thereafter, the trust was taken over by the Department and consequently eviction proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool i.e., the 4th respondent and the O.A. was numbered as 79 of 1997. The petitioner has filed compromise application before the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 89 (2) of the Act in 2005 and the same was approved vide order dated 25.05.2005 for purchasing the property on payment of market value. The order of compromise was subjected to further enquiry by Justice Venkata 3 Rami Reddy Commission and the Commission also held that the compromise order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments was correct and the issue is ceased of by the Government. While so, the 4th respondent passed ex-parte order of eviction under Section 83 of the Endowments Act and the said eviction order was assailed in the revision before the 3rd respondent, which was numbered as R.P.No.25 of 2007. While the said revision is pending, the 5th respondent contemplated to hold public auction of the lease hold rights of the property belonging to the Trust, which was in possession of petitioner since 1993 in pursuance of lease agreement. The public auction was challenged before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent vide Memo No.23254/Endts.II/A1/20212-1, dated 26.05.2012 granted interim stay of public auction notice. While things stood thus, the 1st respondent issued Memo No.23254/Endts.II/A1/2012, dated 26.08.2013, wherein the stay granted on 26.05.2012 was vacated and accorded permission to the Manager of the 5th respondent to put the property in public auction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26656 of 2013 before this Court and the same was allowed by setting aside the 1st respondent Memo dated 26.08.2013 and directed the 1st respondent to issue fresh orders after following due procedure. Surprisingly, the 1st respondent passed orders vide Memo No.36790/Endts.II/A1/2013, dated 28-08-2015, vacating the interim order dated 26.05.2012 and instructed the Commissioner to take appropriate steps through Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Tirupathi to call for 4 fresh auction and lease out the property to the highest bidder. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 23.09.2015, granted stay of dispossession of petitioner from the schedule mentioned property admeasuring an extent of 508.4 sq.yards in Door No.158, Theerdhakatta Street, Tirupathi. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the 5th respondent is a religious institution governed by provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 and it is an old trust established by one Govinda Charyulu, founder, which deed was registered on 09.07.1898 under document No.861/1898 renouncing all his rights and that trustees should utilize the income from the trust properties for carrying out of the obligations contained in the deed. Later, the Endowments Department took over the control of the trust registered the same under Section 6(c) of the Act 30/87 and also appointed Executive Officer in the year 1996. The subject public trust is having many properties; one among them is situated at Teerthakatta Street, Tirupati, consisting of vacant side admeasuring 784 sq.yards. It is further stated that, initially an eviction order was passed on 15.02.2003, which was questioned by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent and the same was remanded back for fresh disposal by giving opportunity to the petitioner. 5 Accordingly notice was sent to the petitioner, which was received and an advocate filed vakalat, but none appeared as such it was closed. Therefore, an order was passed on 23.10.2006, declaring the petitioner as an encroacher by directing to remove the encroachment within 15 days and hand over the same to 5th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed compromise application and the same was ordered in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, all the orders passed by the then Commissioner under Section 89(2) of the Act till 31.05.2005 were all cancelled vide proceedings Rc.No.M4/23256/2005, dated 02.06.2005, as they were all issued fraudulently. It is further stated that the order passed in OA is not an ex-parte order, as notice was issued to the petitioner and a counsel has filed vakalat, but did not adduce any evidence nor appeared before the 4th respondent. The petitioner has preferred revision in R.P.No.25/207, but there was not stay of any further proceedings, as such public auction was proposed to be conduct on 03.05.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner made representation to the Minister for Endowments, seeking stay of proceedings till the revision petition is disposed of and also to say the auction proceedings. Thereafter, an endorsement was made by the minister and referred it to Principal Secretary and the auction was stayed calling for report from the Commissioner, dated 26.05.2012. Later, the 1st respondent after careful examination of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent had vacated the stay on 26.08.2013. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6 5. Heard Mr.M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, when the compromise proposal were effected, the 4th respondent cannot pass parallel proceedings of eviction in O.A.No.79 of 1997. He further submits that, as the 4th respondent passed an ex-parte order, the petitioner preferred revision before the 1st respondent and while the revision is pending before the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent contemplated to hold public auction of the lease hold rights of property. Thereafter, the 1st respondent granted stay of public auction vide order dated 26.05.2012 and to utter surprise, the 1st respondent vide order dated 26.08.2013 vacated the stay granted on 26.05.2012 and accorded permission to 5th respondent to put the property in public auction. When the same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.26656 of 2013, this Court prima facie satisfied that no notice was issued nor the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing prior to vacation of stay, this Court has set aside the order dated 26.08.2013 and directed the 1st respondent to issue fresh orders. He further submits that, the 1st respondent vide order dated 28.08.2015 again vacated the interim order dated 26.05.2012 and instructed the Commissioner to take appropriate steps through Assistant 7 Commissioner of Endowments, Tirupathi to call for fresh auction and lease out the property to the highest bidder. He further submits that the 1st respondent with adamant attitude and gross disrespect to the directions of this Court, passed orders as per its whims and fancies duly dispensing with the principles of natural justice and also the procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the order passed in OA was not an ex-parte order, as notice was issued to the petitioner and a counsel has also filed Vakalat on behalf of petitioner, but did not adduced any evidence nor appeared before the 4th respondent. He further submits that it is not true to say that the same procedure was adopted again by the 1st respondent in vacating the stay of auction as the order dated 28.08.2015 is passed, after considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07.04.2015. He further submits that the burden lies on the petitioner to substantiate as to where the Revision is pending as on today. After bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, there is no jurisdiction before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-III, Hyderabad and such zone does not exist. Once the Revision Petition does not exist, the order in OA stands good and once the dispute property is taken possession, the 5th respondent has every 8 right to auction the trust property for the benefit of the trust. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the 5th respondent for the subject lease and constructed a building. The 5th respondent filed O.A.No.79 of 1997 before the 4th respondent and the same was ordered, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment and handover the possession to the 5th respondent. As the O.A. was decided ex-parte, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. While the revision was pending, the 5th respondent proposed to hold a public auction, which the petitioner challenged before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, vide order dated 26.05.2012, granted interim stay on the public auction. However, after careful examination of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent, vide order dated 26.08.2013, has vacated the stay granted on 26.05.2012. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner was declared as an encroacher vide order dated 23.10.2006, passed in O.A.No.79 of 2017 before the 4th respondent. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the present writ petition. However, if at 9 all any grievance, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the O.A. proceedings before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 07.02.2025 BMS