A.P.N.G.O'S ASSOCIATION Vs GOVT. OF A.P. .
Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: C.A. No.-004383-004383 / 2014
Diary number: 5812 / 2006
Advocates: G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD Vs
C. K. SUCHARITA
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