Hitakarini Samaj Vs. State of A.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No.575/2000
In
SLP (C) No. 17065/1999
In
SLP (C) No. 17065/1999
Petitioner: Hitakarini Samaj
Respondent: State of A.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No.575/2000
In
SLP (C) No. 17065/1999
In
SLP (C) No. 17065/1999
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 27, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 137 – Review – Institution not exempted from A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1966- Such exemption only for 3 years from 10.12.81 – No extension – Property fetching meagre rent of Rs. 200 p.m. – On sale, only interest of Rs. 1,30,980 p.a to be yielded as against income of Rs. 2400/- p.a – Permission granted for sale otherwise than by auction. Held, was justified and SLP was rightly dismissed. (Paras 2,3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The points raised in the Review Petition in regard to dismissal of SLP(C) No. 17065/99 (Arising out of W.P. 10009/92) are not tenable.
2. The contention that the institution was exempt from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowment Act 1966 as on 20.8.90 when G.O. 1110 was issued according to permission for sale otherwise than by public auction, is not correct. The exemption from provisions of the Act dated 10.12.81 was granted only for 3 years in G.O. 1815 and it had expired by 10.12.81. No document extending it further is on record before us. Hence the Act applied.
3. The High Court found that while normally public auction would be proper, the deviation from the normal rule is permitted by Section 80 and on facts was justified because the property was under a tenant for a meagre rent from 1968 for 10 years with a right for two renewals each for 10 years, the last rent was Rs. 200/- p.m. and the tenant was also given a right to construct a factory. He was also given a right of pre-emption. Therefore, Government appointed a Committee of officials to evaluate value of land, the Committee fixed value of land at Rs.12.65 lakhs which would yield annual interest of Rs. 1,30,980 in the place of the meagre annual rent of Rs. 2,400/-. A large number of workmen were also working in the factory. The High Court’s view was that the permission granted was not arbitrary and that the value fetched was reasonable and the said view is correct. The fact that the Samaj propagates Brahmosamaj tenets or is a religious minority is not relevant in this context. The writ petition and the special leave petition were rightly dismissed.
4. The review petition is therefore dismissed.
1. The points raised in the Review Petition in regard to dismissal of SLP(C) No. 17065/99 (Arising out of W.P. 10009/92) are not tenable.
2. The contention that the institution was exempt from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowment Act 1966 as on 20.8.90 when G.O. 1110 was issued according to permission for sale otherwise than by public auction, is not correct. The exemption from provisions of the Act dated 10.12.81 was granted only for 3 years in G.O. 1815 and it had expired by 10.12.81. No document extending it further is on record before us. Hence the Act applied.
3. The High Court found that while normally public auction would be proper, the deviation from the normal rule is permitted by Section 80 and on facts was justified because the property was under a tenant for a meagre rent from 1968 for 10 years with a right for two renewals each for 10 years, the last rent was Rs. 200/- p.m. and the tenant was also given a right to construct a factory. He was also given a right of pre-emption. Therefore, Government appointed a Committee of officials to evaluate value of land, the Committee fixed value of land at Rs.12.65 lakhs which would yield annual interest of Rs. 1,30,980 in the place of the meagre annual rent of Rs. 2,400/-. A large number of workmen were also working in the factory. The High Court’s view was that the permission granted was not arbitrary and that the value fetched was reasonable and the said view is correct. The fact that the Samaj propagates Brahmosamaj tenets or is a religious minority is not relevant in this context. The writ petition and the special leave petition were rightly dismissed.
4. The review petition is therefore dismissed.
