AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed question the letter No.E2/1712/2021, dated 05.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 corresponding to respondent No.2 requesting for issue of consent for transfer of land to an extent of Ac.2-00 Gts situated in Sy Nos.220/2 and 221/2 of Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District for the purose of establishing Veg and Non-veg market yard.
Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.
Having considered the arguments advance on either sides and considering the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, this Court does not find any reason to go deep into the matter. It is evident from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 that the petitioners herein have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land together with certain other lands in respect of which Occupancy Right Certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.4 i.e., Sita Ramachandhra Swamy Temple under the provisions of A.P.(Telangana area) Abolition of Inam Act, 1955. The petitioners herein being Archakas rendering services in temple of respondent No.4 and are in enjoyment the subject land.
The litigation with reference to declare the respondent No.4 as owner by showing Occupancy Right Certificate vis-à-vis, the petitioner herein is pending for adjudication before this Court in WA No.271 of 2012. However, the right of the petitioners to enjoy the subject land as long as they render services to the respondent No.4-temple, is not in dispute and on the other hand their right to that extent is declared in WP No.21394 of 2000. Through impugned letter the respondent No.5 only sought for a consent for transfer of the subject land to revenue department for the purpose of establishment of Veg and Non-veg market. As seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, the said consent is not yet issued by the respondent No.2 and it is further stated that in order to give such consent, there is lot of procedure which is required to be undertaken under Section 80 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1987 including publication in Telangana Gazette and calling for objection from the general public, etc.,
It is also categorically stated that as of now no decision has been taken by the Respondent No.2 for granting of such consent pursuant to the impugned letter. Further the impugned letter is only a correspondence between the respondent No.5 and respondent No.2 and the same is not yet materialized. It is only when the respondent No.2 herein issue consent, pursuant to the impugned letter, there could be cause of action to the petitioners to question the same. Thus the writ petition is premature.
No doubt, the right of the writ petitioner to continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject land is not in dispute and hence any decision taken to handover the subject land to the respondent No.5, whether for establishing Veg and Non-veg market yard or for any other purpose or to deal with the subject land in any other manner without notice and information to the petitioners would have effect of causing prejudice to the petitioners and their rights.
As this Court has concluded that this Writ Petition is premature, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondents to take into consideration the rights of the petitioners to enjoy the subject land as acknowledge by this Court by order dated 25.07.2008 in WP No.21394 of 2000 and put the petitioners on notice and give them an opportunity before any decision for transfer of subject land or for giving consent pursuant to the impugned letter E2/1712/2021, dated 05.03.2021 and consider their objections in accordance with law. In case if any decision is taken adverse to the interest of the petitioners herein, the petitioners are at liberty to persue the remedies as may be available under law.
Subject to the above directions this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to cost.