Skip to content


Gullapalli Krishna and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWP No. 3677 of 2002
Judge
Reported in2004(2)ALD759
ActsAndhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 77
AppellantGullapalli Krishna and ors.
RespondentDistrict Collector and ors.
Appellant AdvocateE.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Pleader for Endowments
Excerpt:
trusts and societies - multiplicity of proceedings - section 77 of a.p. charitable and hindu religious institutions endowments act, 1987 - application of charitable institution claiming property possessed by petitioner - revenue divisional officer (rdo) suo moto issued another notice to petitioner regarding same property - act empowers rdo to decide disputes on application from parties or proceedings initiated suo moto - issuance of notice suo moto when application for same relief pending not tenable in law - rdo directed to dispose of matter on basis application within 3 months. - .....is filed asserting its claim over the land. it is stated that though the impugned notice is issued in exercise of suo motu powers under section 77 of the act, it cannot be said that it is in addition to, or different from the proceedings initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned government pleader for revenue and learned counsel for the 4th respondent.4. section 77 of the act empowers the revenue divisional officer to pass appropriate orders as indicated therein, either on an application filed by religious institutions or suo motu. the impugned show-cause notice is issued in exercise of the suo motu powers. if this is examined in isolation, no exception can be taken to it. the fact, however, remains that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 7-2-2002 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, the 2nd respondent herein. According to them, they are in possession of various extents of land in Sy.Nos.121 and 122 of Gorsa Revenue Village, U.Kothapally Mandal, East-Godavari District, since last several years. It is stated that Sri Seetharama Swamy Devasthanam, the 4th respondent herein, made claim over the lands and in fact, had submitted an application under Section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') before the 2nd respondent for resumption of the land and for ancillary reliefs in December 2000, and that the same is pending. Petitioners contend that even while that application is pending, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice under Section 77 itself, and that it would result in duplication of exercise of powers.

2. On behalf of the Respondent No. 4, a counter-affidavit is filed asserting its claim over the land. It is stated that though the impugned notice is issued in exercise of suo motu powers under Section 77 of the Act, it cannot be said that it is in addition to, or different from the proceedings initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Counsel for the 4th respondent.

4. Section 77 of the Act empowers the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate orders as indicated therein, either on an application filed by religious institutions or suo motu. The impugned show-cause notice is issued in exercise of the suo motu powers. If this is examined in isolation, no exception can be taken to it. The fact, however, remains that the 4th respondent had submitted an application under Section 77 of the Act, before the 2nd respondent and that the same is said to be under consideration. Once the proceedings are taken up under Section 77 of the Act by the 2nd respondent on an application filed by the 4th respondent, there does not exist any basis or occasion for him to exercise suo motu powers under that very section. Though it is stated that the show-cause is issued on the basis of a representation of a Sarpanch and villagers, the fact remains that in respect of that very land proceedings are pending under the same provision. That being the case, it is found that the impugned show-cause notice is superfluous. The 2nd respondent can examine the entire matter in the proceedings initiated on the strength of the application of the 4th respondent, where the petitioners are impleaded as respondents.

5. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the show-cause1 notice, and directing the 2nd respondent to examine all the relevant issues in the proceedings that have been initiated on the basis of the application submitted by the 4th respondent, duly taking into account the contentions of the parties therein. The proceedings shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since all the petitioners herein have been impleaded as respondents in the application filed by the 4th respondent, it is directed that the 2nd respondent need not await the service of notice on the petitioners herein under the said proceedings. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //