Kalluri Yadagiri, v. The Commissioner Of Endowments Dept. Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6412 of 2007 ORDER:

Certain lands belonging to 4th respondent institution were put up for public auction on 30-04-2004 by the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent.

2. The petitioners participated in the said auction.

3. The 1st petitioner became the highest bidder for an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.282 and he quoted Rs.40,000/- per acre. He was also the highest bidder for an extent of Ac.1.36 guntas of land in Sy.No.283, for which he quoted Rs.27,100/- per acre. The 2nd petitioner was the highest bidder for an extent of Ac.3.17 guntas in Sy.No.490, for which he quoted Rs.37,500/- per acre. The 3rd petitioner was the highest bidder for an extent of Ac.4.21 guntas in Sy.No.491, for which she quoted Rs.37,500/- per acre. These items are Sl.Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 of the notification.

4. The petitioners paid 1/3rd of the bid amounts on 30-04-2004. Since respondents were not registering the lands in their favour, they filed a representation on 10-07-

2005.

5.

The 1st respondent vide proceedings Dis.No.L4/1725/04 dt.Nil-7-2005 vetoed the said sale in favour of petitioners and directed the 4th respondent to refund the amounts to the highest bidders along with bank interest. In the said order, he relied upon the judgment dt.07-06-2005 rendered by this Court in W.P.No.11812 of 2005.

6.

The petitioners then filed W.P.No.22425 of 2005 questioning the action of 1st respondent in vetoing the sale in their favour.

7. On 26-10-2005, the said Writ Petition was allowed on the ground that the 1st respondent did not mention any reason for vetoing the same, clarifying that the order passed by this Court on 07-06-2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005 was subsequently explained in the order dt.08-08-2005 in W.P.No.15795 of 2005 as applying only to sales arising out of compromise or negotiations, that only such sales were stayed by the Court and it would not apply to purchases made in a public auction. The order of the 1st respondent was accordingly set side and he was directed to pass fresh orders.

8.

The petitioners then gave another representation dt.11-11-2005 enclosing the copy of the order dt.26-102005 in W.P.No.22425 of 2005 to the 1st respondent. Since he did not pass any orders on it, they issued a legal notice dt.24-01-2006 and then filed C.C.No.372 of 2006 before this Court for disobeying the order dt.26-10-2005 in W.P.No.22425 of 2005.

9.

Thereafter the 1st respondent passed orders in Rc.No.M3/17225/2004 dt.19-12-2006 upholding his earlier order vetoing the sale in favour of the petitioners and directing the 4th respondent to conduct a fresh auction. He stated that the petitioners are free to participate in the proposed auction. In that order, the 1st respondent stated that the prices offered by the petitioners were lesser than the market value of the land as per the market value certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narketpally and so the sale is not in the interest of the institution.

10. Basing on this order, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings dt.26-02-2007 stating that the 1st respondent had vetoed the sale in public auction and the Trust Board of the 4th respondent also decided to abide

by the said order and return the deposits to petitioners with bank interest.

11. The 4th respondent also sent cheques to each of the petitioners of the amounts representing the principal as well as interest thereon as on that date and asked the petitioners to accept the cheques.

The petitioners, however, returned the same by a petition dt.07-032007/21-03-2007. Thereafter they filed the present Writ Petition.

12. The petitioners disputed the allegation of respondent Nos.1 and 4 that the rate offered by them was much lower than the market rate fixed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narketpally and alleged that this was invented for the purpose of issuing the impugned order. According to them, it was obligatory on the part of respondents to make due enquiry under Rule (2)(i)(f) of Alienation of Immovable Property Rules, 1987 before conducting tender-cumpublic auction. It was also pointed out that in the earlier proceedings issued by 1st respondent in July, 2005, which were set aside in W.P.No.22425 of 2005, this reason had not been mentioned and so the respondents were estopped from raising this ground. They also pointed out that under Rule

14 of the of Alienation of Immovable Property Rules, 1987, the 1st respondent was supposed to either confirm or refuse the sale conducted in public auction within three months from the date of auction sale, but in the present case, although the said auction was held on 30-04-2004, and the 1st respondent had time only upto 30-07-2004 to refuse or confirm the sale on any ground, he did not do so. Once that period had elapsed, they contended that he cannot now refuse to confirm the auction.

13. On 10-07-2007 in W.P.M.P.No.18354 of 2007, this Court directed that a proposed auction of leasehold rights pursuant to a notice dt.30-06-2007 may go on, but the lease, if any, granted shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition and this fact should be made known to the participants by respondents at the time of the said auction.

14.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, the respondents have denied any wrongdoing in cancelling the bids of the petitioners.

They pointed out that respondents were justified in refusing to accept the bids of petitioners since they were considered to be low and as such the decision was in the interest of the institution and

was a just and reasonable one taken by 1st respondent. They pointed out that they returned the principal amounts also to petitioners by way of cheques and petitioners had refused to take them and returned them. They contended that 1st respondent is statutorily empowered to sanction sale of immovable properties of institutions like 4th respondent under Section 80 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") and he can approve the sales provided the sales are necessary or beneficial to the religious institutions, or the management of the immovable property by the temple is uneconomical, and the sale consideration is found to be adequate and proper. They contended that these facts were taken into consideration when the 1st respondent had passed the order dt.

26-02-2007 and there is no wilful delay on the part of 1st respondent in passing this order. It was also stated that an auction was conducted pursuant to a notice dt.30-06for the period to and one D.Ramalingaiah and P.Saidulu are in possession of the property and paying rents to the 4th respondent. It is also stated that on 28-05-2013, the 1st respondent approved the said auction of leasehold rights in favour of the above two individuals.

15. Learned counsel for 4th respondent contended that petitioners cannot insist on any sale deed to be executed in their favour pursuant to the bids offered by them in the auction held on 30-04-2004 in view of the fact that the decision was taken in the interest of the institution in order to secure proper consideration and therefore the Writ Petition be dismissed.

16.

Section 80 (1)(b) of the Act states that the 1st respondent is obligated to keep in mind the following three factors in deciding whether or not to accord sanction to any transaction of sale, gift or exchange or endowment: (a) that the transaction is prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment;. (b) in respect of immovable property which is uneconomical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and (c) the consideration therefor is adequate and proper.

17. A reading of the order dt.19-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner shows that the market value of the said lands as per Market Value Certificate issued on 30-092002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narketpally was Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre; the auction was held

on 30-04-2004 more than one and half year later; that rate would be increasing year by year; and the rates quoted by petitioners were considered to be low by 1st respondent. It cannot be said that this opinion formed by 1st respondent is in any way arbitrary or illegal. In fact, it indicates that Commissioner had correctly kept in mind the above three factors in deciding whether or not to accord sanction for the sale of the above properties pursuant to the auction held on 30-04-2004. Once he came to the conclusion that the consideration which would be received was not adequate and interest of the institution would suffer by selling the properties to petitioners, he had no choice but to veto the auction. May be there is some delay in passing of this order, but the respondents have not been able to place any material before this Court to come to the conclusion that the land values have been decreasing and the sale in favour of petitioners would be more beneficial.

18. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief in the Writ Petition. However, the respondents shall refund to the petitioners the amount deposited by them on 30-04-2004 with applicable bank interest within three (03) months from today. They shall also provide a calculation

to each of the petitioner as to how they calculated the interest. If the petitioners are of the view that they are entitled to more interest, it is open to them to approach a competent Civil Court and make the said claim. 19.

The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs.

20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 22-02-2016 Vsv/*