Sri Sarva Sangha Seva Ashram vs District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others

The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under :

The petitioner society consists of 250 members; in the year 1973, they encroached 10 (Ten) acres of land comprised in Sy. No.275, situated in Adavivaram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District, owned by the 3rd respondent-Temple and since then it has been in actual possession of the land; in the year 1991, when there was a threat from the Management of the 3rd respondent temple to demolish the structures erected by the petitioner society, the petitioner society and two of its members filed WP No.17397 of 1991 and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 2-7-1992 directing the temple Management to consider the application of the petitioner for purchase of the subject land if such written application /representation was made within two weeks from the date of the Order; as per the direction, written application was made to the 3rd respondent on 14-7-1992 and till date no action is taken by the 3rd respondent. So averring and alleging, the instant writ petition is filed praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to grant patta in respect of the subject land and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner''s possession of the subject land.

The facts stated supra themselves establish that the petitioner has no semblance of legal right to seek the above two remedies. The petitioner is admittedly an encroacher of the land belonging to the temple. The petitioner as a matter of right or as a matter of course cannot claim that the temple Management shall sell the subject land to it and its members. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to establish the obligation cast on the temple management to sell its property to the petitioner society as a matter of legal obligation. Secondly, the petitioner being an encroacher cannot seek injunction against ihe admitted lawful owner. Thirdly, the so called application made by the petitioner on 14-7-1992 is extra-legal in nature and no writ will lie to the respondent-management of the temple to consider and dispose of an extra-legal application. In expressing this opinion, 1 need not dilate further, because this Court, has had an occasion in Water Users'' Association, Peddacheruvu, Maddulaparva Village, Krishna District Vs. District Collector, Krishna District and others, , to consider similar question, and after referring to the binding authorities of the Supreme Court, opined that no direction shall issue to an authority under Article 226 to consider and dispose of extra-legal petitions, correspondences, letters etc. No doubt if an applicant for the writ under Article 226 shows that he has a right to be considered at the hands of the respondent-public authorities, writ will tie to such authorities to consider his claim/application, as the case may be. But, such right to be considered should be established with reference to the Constitution or public law, statute or common law principles. In the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he has a right to be considered and the temple administration is under a legal obligation to consider the application of the petitioner dated 14-7-1992. In other words, the temple administration, if it is so chooses, can ignore the application of the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, after referring to the pleading at page 2 and 3 of the affidavit where it is stated that the Trust Board of the 3rd respondent temple has constituted a Committee to consider the request of the encroachers to purchase the encroached property belonging to temple, would maintain that the petitioner has a right to be considered. This managerial action taken by the Trust Board of the temple to deal with its properties does not/cannot impose a legally enforceable public law obligation on the temple management nor does it create a right in the petitioner to purchase the encroached land as a matter of course or law or right without volition of the temple management. Therefore, issuance of mandamus to the temple management to sell the encroached land to the petitioner or its members does not arise. Writ Petition is grounded on the mis-conceived right of the petitioner.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.