BELEY NARASIMHA RAO Vs. PEDDINTAMMAVARI TEMPLE
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-71
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 25,1992

BALEY NARASIMHA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
PEDDINTAMMAVARI TEMPLE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.Subhashan Reddy, J. - (1.)This is a glaring case how the temples' properties are being mismanaged and how the people are setting up vexatious claims in order to cause loss to the endowment properties. Very valuable agricultural lands, wet assessed and irrigated through government source of irrigation, admeasuring Ac.38-38 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.117,- 118, 119, 120, 121, 124 and 125 of Chittennapadu village of Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District, are involved in this case. It is claimed by the writ petitioner/appellant that he is the statutory tenant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). It is also claimed that by virtue of he being a statutory tenant, his rights are protected and that he has got pre-emption to purchase the said lands and that without offering the same to him for sale, the respondents have put it for sale by public auction and that the said action is illegal. For that purpose, our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is invoked by the petitioner.
(2.)Apart from the right of the petitioner, we shall first dwell on his conduct in approaching this Court. It is well settled that the person seeking an extraordinary remedy, which is also an equitable remedy, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to prove that he came to this Court with clean hands. We have to say that the conduct of the petitioner in accepting the lease for one year and defaulting the. same; then setting the matter by getting out of possession voluntarily: then encroaching the same latter and again paying penalty; then participating in auction when the sale was conducted and seeking adjournment of the same; then approaching this court, amply proves that there are no bom fides on the part of the petitioner. This conduct itself disentitles him from approaching this Court and to have any equitable remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)That apart, even on merits absolutely there is no case for the petitioner to stall the auction sale, which was being conducted by the respondents. Admittedly, the property belongs to the first respondent herein and they have sought for permission to sell the same from the second respondent and the said permission was granted. The petitioner, on his own showing, was never in possession continuously for six years as a tenant so as to claim any rights as a tenant. As such he cannot get any protection under the provisions of the Act. He has got absolutely no right to stall the auction sale being conducted by the respondents.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.