Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha V. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor, Chittoor District and The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department

WP/31438/2012

AI Insights

The case involves a series of writ petitions filed by Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha against the actions of the Endowments Department of Andhra Pradesh, which sought to register the Sabha under the Endowments Act and take control of a land parcel used for growing flowers for temple offerings. The Sabha argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act as it was based in Tamil Nadu and registered under the Societies Registration Act there. The court examined the applicability of the Endowments Act, 1987, to the Sabha and its properties, ultimately deciding in favor of the Sabha based on precedents that the law of the state where the institution is headquartered governs such matters.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799680 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Anant Prasad Lakshmi Nivas Ganerival Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Bihar Vs. Charuseeladasi, Panchanan Dhara and Ors. Vs Monmtha Narth Maity
• Laws Referred To: A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, Societies Registration Act of 1860, Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS; G RAMANA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: M VIDYASAGAR
• Keywords: Charitable Trust; Endowments Act; Jurisdiction; Property Dispute; Registration; Religious Trust; Specific Endowment
• Section: 38; 6(c)(i)

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.31438 of 2012, 31476 of 2016 & 1931 of 2020 COMMON ORDER:- As all the three petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and are challenging actions of the State which are consequential to each other, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In W.P.No.31438 of 2012, the petitioner is challenging the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor District in registering the petitioner institution under the provisions of Section 38 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 on 21.10.1981. 3. In W.P.No.31476 of 2016, the petitioner is challenging G.O.Ms.No.432 dated 12.09.2016, issued by the Government directing the Executive Officer of Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam to take over Ac.2.24 cents of land in Sy.No.218/3 of Pangallu Village, Sri Kalahasthi belonging to the petitioner-sabha. 4. In W.P.No.1931 of 2020, the petitioner is challenging the actions of the Executive Officer of the above referred temple, trying to take over the aforesaid land by prohibiting the petitioner from entering in to the said land. RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 2 5. The petitioner was registered as a Public Society on 21.12.1955 in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, as the Telugu Beri Vaisya Kulabhimana Sabha, Madras. The address of the society was given as old No.4, New No.28, Kalappaachari Street, Chennai. The name of the petitioner-sabha was changed to that of Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Registrar of Societies on 19.11.2006. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially established in the year 1921 and had been registered as a Society in 1955 with its Registered Office at Chennai. The petitioner contends that it had certain properties which are specifically donated for a charitable purpose including a charitable institution known as “Änkamma Charities” which had been donated by late Smt. Annadisetty Ankamma, in the year 1965, settling the house in which the registered office of the petitioner-sabha is situated. 7. The petitioner-sabha also owns Ac.2.24 cents of land in Pangallu village, Sri Kalahasti, Chittoor District. This land is said to have been donated to the petitioner-sabha by one of its members for the purpose of using the said land, for growing flowers, which were to be offered to Sri Kalahasteeswara and Gnanaprasunamba, who are the presiding Deities of the Sri Kalahasteeswara Temple, Sri RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 3 Kalahasthi (hereinafter referred to as the Temple). The petitioner has also been issued pattadar pass books by the revenue authorities showing the said land is the property of the petitioner-sabha. 8. The petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.31438 of 2012 contending that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Chittoor District had registered the petitioner-sabha under Section 38 of the Endowments act, 1966 without any intimation to the petitioner and also that such registration is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Prasad lakshmi Nivas ganerival Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, and the judgment in State of Bihar Vs. Charuseeladasi2, which was followed in the case of Panchanan Dhara and Ors., Vs Monmtha Narth Maity3. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in these judgments had held that the Endowment law applicable in the State in which the seat of the Endowment Institution is situated would apply to all properties of such an institution irrespective of the location of such property in any other State. 9. While this writ petition was pending, the Endowment Department, on the ground that the petitioner sabha was seeking to construct a huge building in the land reserved for a flower garden had sought to stop the said construction and sought to take over the said land. At that 1 AIR (1963) SC 853 2 AIR 1959 SC 1002 3 (2006) 5 SCC page 330 RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 4 stage, a meeting was conducted between the Commissioner, Endowments, the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent temple and the representative of the petitioner-sabha on 23.06.2016. In that meeting it was agreed by all sides that the land would be used for growing flowers and the said flowers would be kept exclusively for the use of the deities in the temple. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of the temple informed the Principal Secretary, Revenue that the petitioner- sabha had failed to adhere to the decision taken in the said meeting and as such, the executive Officer of the Devasthanam should be permitted to take back the possession of the land for growing flowers in the said land. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner had moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.31476 of 2016. 10. While these two writ petitions were pending, the respondents again sought to take over possession of the land resulting in the filing W.P.No.1931 of 2020. 11. The respondents have filed counter affidavits in W.P.No.31476 of 2016 and W.P.No.1931 of 2020. The stand taken by them is that the petitioner-sabha has been registered earlier under 1966 Act and subsequently under Section 6 (c)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short „the Act, 1987‟) by proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments dated 21.11.1987 in Rc.No.J3/63732/1987 and as such, the petitioner-sabha is amenable to the control and RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 5 jurisdiction of the Endowments Department. The respondents contend that in view of the non implementation of the wishes of the donors of the land, it would be appropriate for the Endowments Department and more specifically the executive Officer of the 3rd respondent- temple to take over the said land and use it for the purpose for which it has been donated, namely growing of flowers which are to be offered exclusively to the deities in the 3rd respondent-temple. 12. The respondents specifically admit in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.31476 of 2016 that this land belongs to the petitioner-sabha. 13. Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 14. There is no dispute that the petitioner-sabha is a religious and charitable institution which would fall within the ambit of the definition of such institutions under the Act, 1987. There is also no dispute that Ac.2.24 cents of land which is the bone of contention in these writ petitions is situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The only issue which remains is whether the petitioner-sabha can be registered under the Act, 1987 and brought within the RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 6 control and regulation of the Endowments Department and its officers under the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987. 15. The contention of the petitioner is that it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act, 1987 as the petitioner-sabha is situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and as such, neither the petitioner-sabha nor any of the properties of the petitioner-sabha situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Endowments Act, 1987. The entries made in relation to the petitioner-sabha under Section 38 of the 1966 Act, by the Assistant Commissioner states that the petitioner has been set up on 04.09.2021 by the Telugu Beri Vaisya Kulabhimana Sabha for the purpose of helping members of this community, who visit the temple on Sivarathri day from Chennai. This register does not state as to the location of the Head Office of the petitioner-sabha except stating that it has property in Sri Kalahasti. 16. The certificate issued by the registrar of Societies in Chennai shows that this society is having its registered office in Chennai in the State of Tamilnadu. Consequently, it must be held that the Petitioner sabha is situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. In such a situation the issue before this court is whether the properties of the petitioner sabha RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 7 situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh are amenable to the jurisdiction of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987? 17. In State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi, 4 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, considering a similar situation held as follows: 13. Now, we proceed to a consideration of the second point. Section 3 of the Act says— “This Act shall apply to all religious trusts, whether created before or after the commencement of this Act, any part of the property of which is situated in the State of Bihar.”……. 14. It is necessary first to determine the extent of the application of the Act with reference to Sections 1(2) and 3 of the Act read with the preamble. The preamble states: “Whereas it is expedient to provide for the better administration of Hindu religious trusts in the State of Bihar and for the protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such trusts.” It is clear from the preamble that the Act is intended to provide for the better administration of Hindu religious trusts in the State of Bihar. Section 1(2) states that the Act extends to the whole of the State of Bihar, and Section 3 we have quoted earlier. If these two provisions are read in the context of the preamble, they can only mean that the Act applies in cases in which (a) the religious trust or institution is in Bihar and (b) any part of the property of which institution is situated in the State of Bihar. In other words, the aforesaid two conditions must be fulfilled for the application of the Act. It is now well settled that there is a general presumption that the legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction, and it is a sound principle of construction that the Act of a sovereign legislature should, if possible, receive such 4 1959 Supp (2) SCR 601 : AIR 1959 SC 1002 RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 8 an interpretation as will make it operative and not inoperative; see the cases referred to In re the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and The Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Amendment) Act, 1936 and In re a Special Reference under Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935 [(1941) FCR 12, 27- 30] , and the decision of this Court in R.M.D. Chamarbauguwala v. Union of India [(1957) SCR 930] . We accordingly hold that Section 3 makes the Act applicable to all public religious trusts, that is to say, all public religious and charitable institutions within the meaning of the definition clause in Section 2(1) of the Act, which are situate in the State of Bihar and any part of the property of which is in that State. In other words, both conditions must be fulfilled before the Act can apply. If this be the true meaning of Section 3 of the Act, we do not think that any of the provisions of the Act have extra-territorial application or are beyond the competence and power of the Bihar Legislature. Undoubtedly, the Bihar Legislature has power to legislate in respect of, to use the phraseology of Item 28 of the Concurrent List, “charities, charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions” situate in the State of Bihar. The question, therefore, narrows down to this: in so legislating, has it power to affect trust property which may be outside Bihar but which appertains to the trust situate in Bihar? In our opinion, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative. It is to be remembered that with regard to an interest under a trust the beneficiaries' only right is to have the trust duly administered according to its terms and this right can normally be enforced only at the place where the trust or religious institution is situate or at the trustees' place of residence; see Dicey's Conflict of Laws, 7th Edn., p. 506. The Act purports to do nothing more. Its aim, as recited in the preamble, is to provide for the better administration of Hindu religious trusts in the State of Bihar and for the protection of properties appertaining thereto. This aim is sought to be achieved by exercising control over the trustees in personam. The trust being situate in Bihar the State has legislative power over it and also over its trustees RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 9 or their servants and agents who must be in Bihar to administer the trust. Therefore, there is really no question of the Act having extra-territorial operation. In any case, the circumstance that the temples where the deities are installed are situate in Bihar, that the hospital and charitable dispensary are to be established in Bihar for the benefit of the Hindu public in Bihar gives enough territorial connection to enable the legislature of Bihar to make a law with respect to such a trust. This Court has applied the doctrine of territorial connection or nexus to income tax legislation, sales tax legislation and also to legislation imposing a tax on gambling. In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [AIR (1958) SC 452, 461] the earlier cases were reviewed and it was pointed out that sufficiency of the territorial connection involved a consideration of two elements, namely, (a) the connection must be real and not illusory and (b) the liability sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that connection. It cannot be disputed that if the religious endowment is itself situated in Bihar and the trustees function there, the connection between the religious institution and the property appertaining thereto is real and not illusory; indeed, the religious institution and the property appertaining thereto form one integrated whole and one cannot be dissociated from the other. If, therefore, any liability is imposed on the trustees, such liability must affect the trust property. It is true that in the Tata Iron & Steel Co. case [AIR (1958) SC 452, 461] this Court observed: “It is not necessary for us on this occasion to lay down any broad proposition as to whether the theory of nexus, as a principle of legislation is applicable to all kinds of legislation. It will be enough for disposing of the point now under consideration, to say that this Court has found no apparent reason to confine its application to income tax legislation but has extended it to sales tax and to tax on gambling.” We do not see any reason why the principles which were followed in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala [(1957) SCR 874] should not be RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 10 followed in the present case. In R.M.D. Calmarbaugwala case [(1957) SCR 874] it was found that the respondent who was the organiser of a prize competition was outside the State of Bombay; the paper through which the prize competition was conducted was printed and published outside the State of Bombay, but it had a wide circulation in the State of Bombay and it was found that “all the activities which the gambler is ordinarily expected to undertake” took place mostly, if not entirely, in the State of Bombay. These circumstances, it was held, constituted a sufficient territorial nexus which entitled the State of Bombay to impose a tax on the gambling that took place within its boundaries and the law could not be struck down on the ground of extra- territoriality. We are of the opinion that the same principles apply in the present case and the religious endowment itself being in Bihar and the trustees functioning there, the Act applies and the provisions of the Act cannot be struck down on the ground of extra- territoriality. 18. In the case of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, two provisions need to be noticed: The Preamble to the Act reads as follows: An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration and governance of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh Section 2 (25) defines “Specific Endowment” as follows: 25) \"Specific Endowment\" means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a charitable or religious institution or for the performance of any other charity, religious or otherwise; RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 11 Explanation 1. - Two or more endowments of the nature specified in this clause the administration of which is vested in a common trustee or which are managed under a common scheme settled shall be construed as a single specific endowment for the purpose of this Act. Explanation 2. - Where a specific endowment attached to charitable or religious institution is situated partly within the State and partly outside the State, control shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Act over the whole of the specific endowment provided the charitable or religious institution is situated within the State ; These provisions which are similar to the provisions considered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the above judgement, make it amply clear that the provisions of the Endowments Act 1987, are applicable only to those institutions which are situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and would not be applicable to any property situated in Andhra Pradesh if the Institution to which that property belongs is not situated within Andhra Pradesh. 19. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Prasad Lakshminiwas Generiwal v. State of A.P., 5 held as follows: 12. In the present case, the temple is situate in Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. There is some property of the temple there, though the major part of the income yielding endowed property is situate outside in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In view therefore of the decision in Sm Charusila Dasi case [(1959) Suppl 2 SCR 601] the Eegulations will 5 1963 Supp (1) SCR 844 : AIR 1963 SC 853 RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 12 apply to this trust as the trust is situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the fact that some of the endowed properties are not in Andhra Pradesh would make no difference. Further the fact that the trust has been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act 30 of 1951 cannot exclude the operation of the Regulations in the case of this trust, for the trust is undoubtedly situate within the area where the Regulations are in force. A “public trust” has been defined in Section 2(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Act as meaning “an express or construst for a public, religious or charitable purpose and includes a temple, a math, a mosque, a church, a wakf or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose”. Section 3 of the said Act provides that “the Deputy Commissioner shall be the Registrar of public trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub-section (3) of Section 4 is situate in his district,” and he shall maintain a register of public trusts. Section 4 provides for the registration of public trusts. It is obvious that public trust as defined in Section 2(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Act 30 of 1951 must be a public trust situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Even though Section 2(4) does not say so in terms, the definition must be confined to public trusts situate in Madhya Pradesh for the Madhya Pradesh legislature could not, obviously did not intend to, legislate with respect to public trusts situate outside Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, Section 2(4) must be interpreted to apply only to public trusts situate in Madhya Pradesh. This conclusion is supported by Section 3. which clearly shows that the Registrar would have jurisdiction in respect of a public trust within his District. As to where a public trust is situate has to be determined in accordance with the decision of this Court in Smt Charusila Dasi RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 13 case [(1959) Suppl 2 SCR 601] and on that view the public trust in this case must be situate in Andhra Pradesh and not in Madhya Pradesh where only some of the endowed trust properties are. In the circumstances the registration of the trust under the Madhya Pradesh Act cannot be a bar against the enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Regulations because even if it may be necessary for the purpose of management of the property in Madhya Pradesh to register this trust also in Madhya Pradesh, that would not exclude the jurisdiction of the State of Andhra Pradesh to legislate with respect to this trust which is undoubtedly situate in Andhra Pradesh, though some property of the trust is in Madhya Pradesh. We therefore agree with the High Court that the trust in this case being situate in Andhra Pradesh, the Regulations will apply to it. 20. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while considering the applicability of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, in relation to a sale transaction involving property situated in Hyderabad, belonging to a charitable trust situated in Kolkata, had held as follows, in A.K. Lakshmipathy v. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust.6 20. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the High Court in the impugned judgment holding that since the Head Office of the Trust is registered at Kolkata which would be enough to show that the relevant law applicable to a charitable trust would be that of the State in which the head office of the trust is registered. (See State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi [AIR 1959 SC 1002] and Anant Prasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal v. State of A.P. [AIR 1963 SC 853] ) In addition to this, the respondents had fulfilled their part of the obligation 6 (2010) 1 SCC 287 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 97 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1750 at page 293 RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 14 when Respondent 2 sent a reply dated 6-6-1979 intimating the appellants that there was no need to obtain any permission from the Endowment Department for the purpose of transferring the title in respect of the property in question as the laws of West Bengal applicable in this case were not required to take such permission for alienation of trust property. In view of the above, we are, therefore, of the view that there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to get clearance or permission or exemption from the Endowment Department of the State for the purpose of transferring the title of the property in question. 21. The Learned government pleader relied upon the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Nautam Prakash DGSVC v. K.K. Thakkar 7to contend that the properties in a State would be governed by the law of that State irrespective of where the trust is situated. However, the ratio in that judgement does not support this contention. In this case, there was a peculiar situation which arose on account of the bifurcation of the State of Bombay into the State of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after noticing that the Trust in that case had been registered with the Charity commissioner, Bombay, when the State was united and the issue of control came up after the bifurcation of the State had held as follows: 24. The legislature of a State while enacting a law is required to maintain the territorial nexus. Only in certain cases, extra-territoriality provided for in the Act is accepted. The field of legislation in respect of religious endowments and religious 7 (2006) 5 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 521 at page 338 RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 15 institutions is referable to Entry 28 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Ordinarily, therefore, the legislation enacted by a State will be applicable only within the territorial limits thereof. There is a general presumption that the legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction. An Act relating to religious and charitable institutions would be presumed to be applicable only in respect of the properties or any part thereof situate in the State. The 1960 Act, however, makes the provisions explicit, clear and unambiguous. The property of the Trust situate within the Maharashtra region in terms of clause 4(b) of the 1960 Order is to be deemed to be registered with the Charity Commissioner, Bombay. The said authority could thus have exercised its jurisdiction only in respect of that property. It had no jurisdiction in relation to the administration of the entire Trust as the office of the Trust is situate within the State of Gujarat. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, could not have issued any direction as prayed for in the application filed before it by the first respondent herein. A statutory authority, as is well known, must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute. It cannot act beyond the same. Any order which is passed by an authority which lacked inherent jurisdiction would be ultra vires. (See Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [(1955) 1 SCR 117 : AIR 1954 SC 340] .) 22. Thereafter, the ratio in Ganeriwal‟s case and Charusheela Dasi was also recorded as follows: 25. In Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Ganeriwal v. State of A.P. [1963 Supp (1) SCR 844 : AIR 1963 SC 853] this Court relying on its earlier decision in State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi [1959 Supp (2) SCR 601 : AIR 1959 SC 1002] opined : (SCR p. 856) RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 16 “This decision in our opinion makes it abundantly clear that, where the trust is situate in a particular State, the law of that State, will apply to the trust, even though any part of the trust property, whether large or small, is situate outside the State where the trust is situate.” 23. In the circumstances, this judgement does not support the contention of the learned Government pleader. 24. The ratio of the above judgements can be summarized to hold that any religious or charitable institution would be governed and regulated by the Endowment Law applicable to the State in which the head quarters of the said institution is situated. In the event of such an institution holding properties, even extensive properties, in any other State, the law applicable to the institution would remain the Endowment law applicable in the State in which it is situated. 25. In these circumstances, it must be held that since the petitioner-sabha is situated in the State of Tamilnadu, the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 would not apply to the petitioner-sabha and the registration of the Petitioner sabha, under the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1966 or the Endowments Act, 1987 is not permissible and it is set aside. Consequently, the authorities under the Endowments Act, 1987 cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioner- sabha over the land admeasuring Ac.2.24 cents in Sri Kalahasti. RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 17 26. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date :04.01.2022 RJS RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 18 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.31438 of 2012, 31476 of 2016 & 1931 of 2020 Date : 04-01-2022 RJS RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** W.P.Nos.31438 of 2012, 31476 of 2016 & 1931 of 2020 W.P.No.31438 of 2012 Between: Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha (Regd) No.4, Kalappachari Street, Park Town, Chennai 600 003, rep.by its Executive Committee Member Sri Pokkali Balaji, S/o.Ramaiah Chetty, aged 48 years, Occ:Business. … Petitioner And $ 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor,Chittoor District. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department. ... Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced on : 04-01-2022 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals: 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment? RRR,J W.P.No.31438 of 2012 & batch 20 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO + W.P.Nos.31438 of 2012, 31476 of 2016 & 1931 of 2020 W.P.No.31438 of 2012 % Dated: 04-01-2022 Between: Ayira Vaisyar Telugu Beri Vysya Sabha (Regd) No.4, Kalappachari Street, Park Town, Chennai 600 003, rep.by its Executive Committee Member Sri Pokkali Balaji, S/o.Ramaiah Chetty, aged 48 years, Occ:Business. … Petitioner And $ 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor,Chittoor District. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department. ... Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : M.Vidya Sagar ^Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : G.P. for Endowments ^Counsel for Respondent No.3 : G.Ramana Rao HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1.AIR (1963) SC 853 2.AIR 1959 SC 1002 3.(2006) 5 SCC page 330 4.1959 Supp (2) SCR 601 : AIR 1959 SC 1002 5.1963 Supp (1) SCR 844 : AIR 1963 SC 853 6. 2010) 1 SCC 287 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 97 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1750 at page 293 7. (2006) 5 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 521 at page 338 "