CHENCHU RAMI REDDY & ANR. versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 01-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

989 
CllENCHU RAMI REDDY & ANR. 
v. 
GOVKRNMENT OF ANllHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
APRIL 1, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Andhra 
Pradesh 
Charitable 
& 
Hindu 
Religious 
and 
Endowments Act, 1966, s.74 - Sale of lands belonging to Math 
by Private negotiation. - When permissible. 
Section 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu 
A 
B 
Religious and Endowments Act 1966 by clause (c) provides : 
C 
"(c) Every sale of any such immovable property 
sanctioned by the Commissioner under clause (b) 
shall 
be 
effected 
by 
public auction in the 
prescribed manner subject to the confirmation by 
the Commissioner within a period prescribed: 
D 
Provided that the Government may, in the interest 
of the institution or endowments and for reasons to 
be recorded therefore in writing, permit the sl\le 
of such immovable property, 
otherwise than by 
public auction." 
E 
Respondent 
Nos. 
5 
to 
24, 
purchased certain lands 
belonging to Sri Bugga Math, Tirupathi by private negotiations 
at the rate of Rs.62,500 per acre. The Government of Andhra 
Pradesh passed an order dated 12th February, 1982 according 
its permission to the said sale under the· proviso to clause 
(c) of sub-s.(l) of s.74 
of the act. The 
appellants 
challenged before the High Court the legality apd validity of 
the Government Order granting such permission, but the .same 
was upheld by the High Court. 
In appeal to the Supreme Court,. it was contended on 
behalf of the appellants that the impugned order of the State 
Government manifests total non-application of mind to the 
essential pre-condition embodied in the proviso to s. 74(l)(c) 
and therefore, it should be struck down. The appellants also 
offered their bid to purchase the said land @Rs. 2,50,000 per 
acre and deposited Rs. 20 lacs as earnest money. 
F 
G 
H 
A. 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 1 s.c.R. 
Allowing the appeal, 
lll!Lll ·: 
1. The essential pre-condition embodied in 
proviso to s;74(l)(c) are : (a) that the Government 11118t be 
satisfied that it is in the interest of the institution or 
endowment to permit the sale of these lands otherwise than by 
B 
public auction; 
and (b) that reasons for reaching this 
satisfaction 11118t be recorded in the order. [993 F-G] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2, The impugned order deserves to be quashed; (i) as it 
suffers from the vice of non-application of mind to essential 
matters; and (ii) as there is no compliance with the relevant 
statutory provision. The impugned order, far from recording 
the satisfaction that it is in the interest 
of 
the 
institution to sell the lands otherwise than by public 
auction, does not even reveal awareness (1) as regards the 
necessity for being so satisfied and (2) as regards the 
mandatory obligation imposed by the statute to record the 
reasons for forming such an opinion in the order itself. In 
· the instant case, there is nothing to show that the authority 
which passed the impugned order was even aware of the 
essential pre-conditions envisioned by the statute. On the 
other hand, it is clear that if the concerned authority had 
even stolen a 
casual glance at the relevant statutory 
provision it could not have failed to say, what it was bound 
to say, if it was so satisfied, that the departure from the 
prescribed llllde of selling by public auction was in the 
interest of the 'Math'. Nor could it have failed to record its 
reasons in support of this conclusion, for the statute in so 
many words, casts an obligation on the concerned authority to 
record such reasons in the order itself. The inference is 
therefore irresistible that the competent authority had failed 
to direct its mind to the requirements of law before passing 
the impugned order. [995 C-D; 994 C-G] 
3. What belongs to 'many', collectively, does not cause 
pangs to 'any', for no one is personally hurt directly. That 
is why public officials and public minded citizens entrusted 
with the care of 'public property' have to show exemplary 
vigilance. What is true of 'public property' , is equally true 
of property belonging to religious or charitable institutions 
or 
endowments. · Properties 
of 
religious 
or 
charitable 
institutions or endowments 11118t be jealously protected. A 
CHENC!Ill RAM1 REDDY V• STATE 
[THAKKAR, J.] 
991 
large segment of the co1111111nity has beneficial interest in it 
A 
(that is the raison 
d'etre of 
the Act 
itself). 
The 
authorities exercising the poWers under the Act 1111&t not only 
be moat al

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