Page 1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL NO.4383  OF 2014

(Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4926 of 2006)

A.P.N.G.O.’s Association …Appellant

Versus

Government of Andhra Pradesh …Respondents & Others

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28th January  

2006  in  Writ  Petition  No.8063  of  2004  and  Writ  Appeal  

No.1035 of  2004 of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh at  

Hyderabad,  the  third  respondent  therein  preferred  the  

instant appeal.

3. By  the  said  judgment,  the  High  Court  set  aside  the  

judgment dated 3rd March 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of

Page 2

2002  rendered  by  a  learned  Single  Judge  and  quashed  

G.O.Ms.  No.911  dated  14.12.2000  issued  by  the  Revenue  

(Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The  appellant  is  an  association  of  the  non-gazetted  

officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in  

the year 1995, the appellant herein requested the Executive  

Officer of the third respondent Temple to sell an extent of 18  

acres  of  land  (Survey  No.221/1)  to  provide  houses  to  its  

members.   

5. The Administration  of  Charitable  and Hindu  Religious  

Institutions and Endowments in Andhra Pradesh is regulated  

by an Act named the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu  

Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.  Section 80  

of the Act insofar as is relevant for us reads as under:

“Section 80.  Alienation of immovable property: 1(a)  Any  gift,  sale,  exchange  or  mortgage  of  any  immovable  property  belonging  to  or  given  or  endowed  for  the  purpose  of  any  charitable or  religious institution,  endowment  shall  be  null  and  

2

Page 3

void unless any such transaction, not being a gift, is  effected with the prior sanction of the Commissioner.

(b) The Commissioner, may, after publishing  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Gazette  the  particulars  relating to the proposed transaction and inviting any  objections and suggestions with respect thereto and  considering  all  objections  and  suggestions,  if  any  received  from  the  trustee  or  other  person  having  interest,  accord  such  sanction  where  he  considers  that the transaction is—

i) prudent  and  necessary  or  beneficial  to  the  institution, or endowment;

ii) in respect of immovable property which is un- economical for the institution or endowment to own  and maintain; and

iii) The  consideration  therefor  is  adequate  and  proper.

(c) Every  sale  of  any  such  immovable  property  sanctioned  by  the  Commissioner  under  clause  (b)  shall  be  effected  by  tender-cum-public  auction  in  the  prescribed  manner  subject  to  the  confirmation  by  the  Commissioner  within  a  period  prescribed:

Provided  that  the  Government  may,  in  the  interest  of  the  institution  or  endowment  and  for  reasons to be recorded therefor in writing, permit the  sale of such immovable property, otherwise than by  public auction.

x x x ”

6. It can be seen from the above that normally the sale of  

any  immovable  property  belonging  to  any  religious  

institution, such as, the third respondent herein can only be  

3

Page 4

effected  by  tender-cum-public  auction  in  the  prescribed  

manner  and  subject  to  the  prior  sanction  of  the  

Commissioner.  Such a prior sanction can be given by the  

Commissioner  if  only  the  Commissioner  first  makes  a  

publication in  the Andhra Pradesh Gazette,  the particulars  

relating to the proposed transaction and invites objections  

and suggestions (if any) and on receipt of the objections or  

suggestions if the Commissioner comes to the conclusion:

1. it  is  un-economical  for  the  institution  or  endowment  to  own  and  maintain  such  immovable property;

2. such  a  sale  is  prudent  and  necessary  or  beneficial to the institution or endowment;

3. such a  sale  is  likely  to  fetch adequate and  proper consideration for the property.

7. On receipt  of  the application from the appellant,  the  

Commissioner,  Endowments  Department  (2nd respondent  

herein) constituted a three-men Committee to inquire and  

report the probable price that may be secured if the land is  

sold in public auction.  The District Collector, Guntur within  

4

Page 5

whose territorial jurisdiction the temple (third respondent) is  

located  addressed  a  letter  dated  26th March  1998  to  the  

Commissioner,  Endowments  Department  (2nd respondent)  

suggesting that the Government be addressed for according  

permission  to  sell  the  land  in  question  to  the  appellant  

association at the cost of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre by private  

negotiations.  However, the Commissioner vide letter dated  

5th March,  1998  advised  the  Government  and  sought  the  

permission of the Government to sell the land in question in  

favour  of  the  appellants  by  private  negotiations  for  a  

consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.

8. Subsequently, the Commissioner invited objections for  

the proposed sale  by publication in  the official  gazette  of  

Andhra  Pradesh  on  3rd April  1999  in  compliance  of  the  

requirement  of  section  80(1)(b)  of  the  Endowments  Act,  

1987.

9. On  14th December  2000,  the  Government  of  Andhra  

Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No.911 purporting the sale of land in  

5

Page 6

question  in  favour  of  the  appellants  as  proposed  by  the  

Commissioner.

10. One  year  thereafter  i.e.  on  22nd June  2002,  a  writ  

petition no. 2563 of 2002 came to be filed challenging the  

G.O.Ms.  No.911  by  17  persons  claiming  to  be  protected  

tenants of the land in question under the A.P. (Andhra Area)  

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956.  Such a claim was  

seriously disputed by the official respondents.   

11. Be that as it may, 16 of the 17 petitioners eventually  

prayed  that  they  may  be  permitted  to  withdraw  the  writ  

petition and the same was permitted to be withdrawn on 26 th  

June 2002 vis-à-vis all the petitioners except petitioner no.9.

12. It  appears  from  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Single  

Judge that the said 9th petitioner also subsequently filed an  

application  being  W.P.M.P.  No.21030  of  2003  seeking  

permission  from  the  Court  to  withdraw  the  writ  petition.  

However,  at  that  stage,  one Dr.  S.  Parthasarathy filed an  

impleadment petition which was allowed by order dated 10th  

6

Page 7

September, 2003.  A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh  

High  Court  by  an  elaborate  order  dated  3rd March  2004  

dismissed the writ petition. The newly added petitioner Dr. S.  

Parthasarathy  carried  the  matter  in  Letters  Patent  Appeal  

No.1034 of 2004.

13. In the meanwhile, on 22nd March, 2004 a registered sale  

deed came to be executed in favour of the appellants herein  

transferring the property in question.  A month thereafter on  

24th April 2004, another Writ Petition No.8063 of 2004 came  

to  be  filed  by  somebody  who  is  resident  of  Hyderabad  

claiming to be interested in the temple.

14. Both the abovementioned Writ Petition and the Letters  

Patent  Appeal  came  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  judgment  

under appeal herein.

15. By  the  judgment  under  appeal,  the  judgment  of  the  

learned Single Jude in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 was set  

aside and also G.O.Ms. No.911 was quashed.

7

Page 8

16. The  undisputed  facts  are  that  a  publication  in  the  

official  gazette  inviting objections and suggestions for  the  

sale  of  the  proposed  property  as  required  under  section  

80(1)(b) was made.  Admittedly, none of the writ petitioners  

before the High Court ever raised any objection or made any  

suggestion in response to the notification.  The Government  

of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the authority under the first  

proviso of  section 80(1)  issued G.O.Ms.  No.911 permitting  

the sale  of  the land in  question otherwise than by public  

auction.

17. As per the pleadings, the land in question was getting  

an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.  On the other hand,  

the Division Bench recorded that in the counter affidavit filed  

by the Government, it is stated that the consideration to be  

received after the sale in question would fetch an interest of  

Rs.6,00,000/- per annum.  The learned Single Judge opined  

that  the  prospect  of  increase  in  the  income  as  a  

consequence  of  the  sale  in  question  is  a  relevant  

8

Page 9

consideration having regard to the scheme of section 80(b).  

The Division Bench thought otherwise on the ground:

“that  the value of  land in  any part  of  the State is  appreciating day by day, whereas the value of money  is depreciating.  Therefore, in our view, even if it was  true  that  the  institution  was  receiving  only  rupees  one lakh by way of rent and it could receive rupees  six lakhs by way of interest after selling the property,  even then, the institution is not in benefit, because  the appreciation of the value of land and depreciation  of value of money was not taken into consideration.”  

18. Coming to the valuation of the land, it can be seen from  

the letter of the concerned District Collector (Guntur) dated  

14th June 2000 addressed to the Government that the market  

value of the land in the vicinity of the land in question varies  

from  Rs.1,00,000/-  to  Rs.1,50,000/-  depending  upon  the  

fertility, texture and location.

19. We are of the opinion that the approach of the Division  

Bench is not in tune with the language of  Section 80.  The  

purpose of making an endowment in favour of a deity is to  

generate  income  for  the  various  services  required  to  be  

rendered to the deity.  Therefore, the prospect of getting a  

higher  income is  certainly  relevant  consideration than the  

9

Page 10

possibility  of  an  appreciation  in  the  value  of  the  asset  

endowed.    On  the  other  hand,  the  entire  higher  annual  

income  accruing  as  interest  on  the  sale  proceeds  of  the  

asset need not be utilised every year only for the services  

but part of it can always be reinvested in proper asset to  

beat the inflation.

20. Apart  from that,  the learned single  Judge recorded a  

finding that all the original writ petitioners withdrew the writ  

petitions and rightly observed that there are no  bona fides  

on  the  part  of  the  petitioners  who  pursued  the  litigation  

subsequent  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  writ  petition  by  the  

original petitioners.

21. In the totality of the circumstances mentioned above,  

we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Division  Bench  erred  in  

interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.  

We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal, restore  

the judgment  of  the learned Single  Judge and uphold  the  

validity  of  G.O.Ms.  No.911  dated  14.12.2000.   Appeal  is  

allowed.  There will be no order as to costs.

1

Page 11

……………………………………J.                                                            (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………………………………J.                                                            (J. CHELAMESWAR) New Delhi, April 3, 2014

1