Custodian-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi vs Collector, Chittoor District and others

N.Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.—The Custodian-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Since both the writ petitions raise common questions for resolution, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, Chittoor District is the owner of Ac.15.63 cents of land in Sy. No.57/3 situated at Tirupathi. By these writ petitions, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in acquiring the land in Sy. No.57/3 in an extent of Ac. 15.63 cents at Tirupathi without following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act and without payment of just compensation and further allowing respondents 4 to 12 in encroaching the land in Sy. No,57/3 in an extent of Ac.15.63 cents belonging to the petitioner (Mutt) without any manner of right or interest as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to follow due procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and not to encroach or alienate the property of the petitioner-institution (Mutt).

According to the petitioner, the said land was proposed for acquisition by Tirumata Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short TTD) and by its order dated 23-12-1990, issued by the then Executive Officer of TTD, followed by another letter addressed by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 28-12-1990 it was proposed to handover the property to TTD Mutt. However, possession of the said property was handed over to the Mutton 18-3-1991 and an endorsement was made recording the delivery of possession and taking over of possession, by both sides, supported by proceedings of the Government in its letter dated 7-8-1993 extracted hereunder:

"Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Endts-II) Department Memorandum No.100371/Endts.II-1/92-1, dated 7-8-1993.

Sub : Endowments - Religious - Chittoor District - Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt - Tirupathi - Acquisition of land measuring Ac.15.63 cts out of Ac.30.63 cts in Sy. No.57/3 Avilala (v) Chittoor District in favour of TTD, Tirupathi - Rectification - Orders -Issued,

Ref : From the CED Hyd., Lr. No.M3/5600/ 91, dated 20-10-1992.

In view of the circumstances reported by the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad in the reference cited, Government after careful examination and consideration of the matter hereby rectify the action of the Commissioner, Endowments Dept., Hyderabad in having given consent to the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi for acquisition of the land Ac.15.63 cts in Sy. No.57/3 of Avilala (v) Chittoor Dist, belonging to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi subject to payment of compensation at the prevailing market value, in the interest of the Mutt.

(2) The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad shall take further necessary action in the matter.

V.S. Prakasa Rao Joint Secretary to Government."

The further case of the petitioner-Mutt is that inspite of handing over possession of the land in question, TTD has not taken steps to issue notification under the Land Acquisition Act. Taking advantage of the situation, some third parties have started setting up their claims, as such it is necessary to grant relief as sought for. Thus contending Shri Ramamohan Reddy requested that the petitions be allowed.

Shri Rajagopal Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings records have been built up to issue notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the same could not be finalised because of pendency of these writ petitions. He further submitted that if the TTD desires, proceedings will be issued under the Land Acquisition Act.

Shri Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the TTD submitted that though there is reference as to handing over and taking over possession of the property, no property of the petitioner-Mutt was handed over to TTD and what is handed over to TTD is only symbolic possession and not actual possession. He further submitted that whatever possession of the land TTD wants to take, it will take the same after resorting to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and just compensation will be paid to the Mutt or the person/persons interested in the property.

Shri Ramana Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents submitted that Shri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt is not the owner of the entire extent of 15.63 cents of land. A portion of the land from out of that extent was purchased by the predecessors in title of the respondents from whom several bits of land were purchased by his clients and certain others and they had put up constructions. Civil litigation started between the third parties including the unofficial respondents herein and the Mutt on the one hand and between the Mutt and third parties on the other both for injunction and possession. According to the learned Counsel, some matters are disposed of and some are pending before the competent civil Court. Thus contending he opposed granting any direction to the TTD to acquire any portion of the land.

After giving our careful thought to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for different parties one thing is quite clear. That is, there is dispute as to the extent of the land in occupation of the petitioner-Mutt. There is no dispute as to the TTD''s desire to acquire the land in question and the Mutt''s willingness to surrender the entire extent of land. The dispute and controversy is only in respect of the extent and in respect of that portion which is in occupation of the third parties where they have put up constructions. In these proceedings, the Court cannot decide the dispute inter se between the petitioner-Mutt and the third parties. That has to be resolved before the competent civil Court. If the petitioner-Mutt feels that third parties encroached on the land and put up unauthorised constructions, it is open to it to initiate appropriate proceedings against the third parties. Likewise, if the third parties, particularly the unofficial respondents herein feel that the land on which they had put up constructions does not belong to the Mutt and there is a demand to vacate the same, it is open to them to resist the same before the authority concerned in an appropriate proceeding. But the unofficial respondents cannot object to TTD''s acquiring vacant land, if any, belongs to the Mutt. In case the TTD wants to acquire the portion of the land or the area where the buildings are put up and that is in occupation of persons other than petitioner-Mutt or the respondents herein, it is open for them to oppose the action before the competent authority in an appropriate proceeding.

Accordingly both the writ petitions are disposed of with the following observations. It is open to the TTD to proceed with acquisition proceedings in respect of that portion of the land, the possession of which has already been taken over. And if possession is not yet taken, it shall proceed with acquisition proceedings in respect of that portion of the land which it desires to acquire and take possession and pay prevailing market value as compensation together with all statutory benefits to the petitioner-Mutt or the persons interested therein. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Disposal of these writ petitions or observations made by us herein shall not be construed that we have said anything on the rights of the third parties in respect of the land which is said to be in their occupation or the rights of the petitioner-Mutt. It is needless to say that any interim orders passed earlier in these proceedings would have any effect subsequent to the passing of the final orders in the writ petitions.

There shall be no order as to costs.