A single-judge bench consisting of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao gave orders on the writ petition no. 5874 of 2021 in Sri. Mandapati Ramalingeswara Rao vs state of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction against the actions of Respondent No. 3 and 4 in filing O.A. No. 502 of 2020 before the A.P. endowment tribunal under section 83 of Endowment Act, 1987 as violative and contrary to the judgment of the High Court.
In this case, the Inam was granted to three ladies by the proceedings of Inam Commissioner dated 20.01.1932. about obtaining the Inam these three ladies sold away from the land. Therefore, the land was transferred from time to time by registered deeds of sale with the petitioner’s father being the last purchaser of the land and the petitioner obtained the property under a family partition. The petitioner asked for the Pattadar passbook. At that stage, Respondent No. 4 – Sri Janardhana Swamy Vari Devasthanam raised objections before Respondent No. 5 – Sub-divisional magistrate regarding the issuance of the Pattadar passbook. After hearing both sides, Respondent No. 5 directed Respondent no. 4 to approach the Endowment Tribunal under section 87 of the Endowment Act, 1987 to resolve the ownership of the property. In pursuance of this direction, Respondent No. 3 and 4 approached the A.P. endowment tribunal by way of O.A. no. 50 of 2020 for eviction of the Petitioners from the property on the ground that the Petitioner has encroached upon the land. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the Petitioner approached the Court to issue a writ of mandamus seeking a direction that the action of Respondent’s No. 3 and 4 are violative and contrary to the judgment of the High Court dated 29.11.2019 in W.P. no. 39704 and 42318 of 2017.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before the court that the present Inam was an enfranchised Inam, which would stand in the same position as Ryotwari lands, and the initial sale of the land can not be faulted. He further added that the Petitioner cannot be treated as an encroacher and the application should have been filed under section 87 of the Endowment Act, 1987 as directed by the authority. He further submitted that the appropriate authority for deciding the issue would be the Revenue Authority and the application before the tribunal would not be permissible and in this, the Inam passes completely so, neither Revenue authorities nor the Endowment tribunal would have the jurisdiction over the matter.
The learned counsel appeared for Respondent no. 4 submitted before the court that under section 87 of the Endowment Act, only the Endowment Tribunal has the authority to decide the issue. He further added that board Standing Orders cannot overrule the statutory provisions of the Endowment Act, 1987 or the Inam Abolition Act.
The court here analyzed that the Petitioner in the Writ Petition seeks to stay the proceedings before the Endowment Tribunal. In such cases, the writ should be prohibition and not mandamus. The contentions related to the title cannot be considered at all if the enfranchised Inam cannot be accepted as any dispute raised in this case needs to be decided by an appropriate tribunal or authority. Respondent No. 4 cannot be deprived of the right of approaching any authority at all on the ground that the property is an enfranchised Inam. In this case, whether the Inam is enfranchised is itself a question that needs to be considered. Both the Inam Abolition Act and the Endowment Act would have to be considered before making a decision. The claim of the petitioner is based on the board’s Standing Orders. The contention of the counsel that Respondent no. 3 and 4 should have approached the tribunal under section 87 and not under section 83 is also an issue that can be considered by the tribunal.
The court held that the Endowment tribunal should give reasonable time to the Petitioner to make his submissions and for filling his pleadings before the tribunal. So, the court dismissed the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all the issues appropriate before the tribunal. There shall be no orders as to costs and any application pending shall also stand closed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.