A.P.N.G.O.'S ASSOCIATION versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 03-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 4 S.C.R. 637 
A.P.N.G.O.'S ASSOCIATION 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4383 of 2014) 
APRIL 3, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU 
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 
1987: 
s. 80 - Sale of land belonging to Charitable and Religious 
Endowment - Writ petition challenging the sale - Dismissed 
A 
B 
c 
by single Judge of High Court - Division Bench quashing the 
sale - Held: Purpose of making an endowment in favour of a D 
deity is to generate income for various services required to 
be rendered to the deity - It has come on record that the 
interest on the sale proceeds will fetch much higher than the 
income the land was getting - Therefore, prospect of getting 
a higher income is certainly relevant consideration than 
possibility of appreciation in value of the asset endowed -
E 
Order of Division Bench of High Court set aside and that of 
single Judge restored. 
The 
appellant-Association 
of non-gazetted 
Government employees applied to the Executive Officer F 
of the third-respondent Temple to sell the land in question 
to provide houses to its members. After inviting 
objections by publication in official gazette in terms of 
s.80(1 )(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu 
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the G 
Act), the Government issued GOMs No. 911 dated 
14.12.2000, purporting to sale of the land in favour of the 
appellants. One year thereafter a writ petition was filed 
637 
H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
challenging the said GOMs No. 911. Subsequently, all the 
original petitioners withdrew the petition, but another 
person who had got himself impleaded, filed a Letters 
Patent appeal against the order of the single Judge 
dismissing the writ petition. Later, after the registered 
B sale deed had been executed, another writ petition was 
filed. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the 
writ petition and the appeal, set aside the judgment of the 
single· Judge and quashed the G.0.Ms. No. 911. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In terms of s.80 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act, 1987, normally the sale of any 
immovable property belonging to any religious institution, 
D · such as, the third respondent can only be 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 only 
if he first makes a publication in the official Gazette of the 
E particulars relating to the proposed transaction and 
invites objections and suggestions (if any) and on receipt 
of the objections or suggestions comes to the 
conclusion: 
. --
1. 
it is un-economical for the institution or 
F 
endowment to own and maintain such 
immovable property; . 
G 
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. [Para 5 
& 6) [641-A; 642-B-E] 
1.2 In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that 
H a publication in the official gazette inviting objections and 
A.P.N.G.O.'S ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNMENT OF· 639 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
suggestions for the sale of the proposed property as A 
required u/s 80(1)(b) of the Act was made. None of the 
writ petitioners before the High Court ever raised any 
objection or made any suggestion in response to the 
notification. The State Government in exercise of the 
authority under the first proviso to s.80 (1) issued G.O.Ms. 
B 
No.911 permitting the sale of the land in question 
otherwise than by public auction. [para 16) [644-C-E] 
1.3 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 C 
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 
single Judge opined that the prospect of increase in the 
income as a consequence of the sale in question is a D 
relevant consideration having regard to the scheme of s. 
80(1)(b) of the Act. [para 17) [644-E-G] 
1.4 The approach of the Division Bench of the High 
Court is not in tune with the language of s. 80. The E 
purpose of making an endowment in favour of a deity is 
to generate income for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.