JUDGMENT
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the Appellants in this writ appeal. They had filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the Notification No. 123, dated 25-8-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, the 1st respondent herein which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part-II Extraordinary as arbitrary and illegal and sought for quashing of the same. The translated version of the Notification dated 25-8-2001 reads as follows:
“Notice No. M4/21387/2001
Whereas the Executive Officer of Sri Navagraha Hanuman Temple sought permission to sell the Land belonging to Navagraha Hanuman Temple in R.P. Road, Hyderabad District. Therefore, those who are interested in this proposal may submit their objections advices within 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in A.P. Gazette.”
2. This Notification was issued under the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)
of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)-
3. By this Notification, the Executive Officer of the Sree Navagraha Hanuman Temple sought permission to sell the land belonging to the Temple in R.P. Road, Hyderabad District and called for the objections from those who are interested in that proposal. They were asked to submit their objections within 30 days from the date of publication of the Gazette. In response to the same, the appellants submitted their objections on 14-9-2001 stating that they are the very old tenants of the Temple land and that the temple has already issued a Notification on 8-10-1996 seeking to sell the land in question by private negotiation. It is further stated that they are ready and willing to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- per square yard and requested the authorities to consider their request for the sale of the property at Rs. 2,100/- per square yard. In the objections, there is no reference to the sale of the property by private negotiation. By another objection dated 1-10-2001, the earlier representation has been reiterated. By this representation they requested again to allot the land to the occupants only as they are in occupation of the same for the last so many years and requested the authorities to stop the auction and allot the same only to the occupants.
4. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of A.P., . Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioners have preferred the present writ appeal.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and also the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that since a Notification has already been issued for sale of the land by private negotiation, the property in question cannot be sold by public auction. It is further submitted that since the Appellants are in occupation of the temple land for several years priority must be given to them to purchase the same by private negotiation at a reasonable price.
7. At the time of hearing of the Appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to purchase the property at Rs. 6,000/- per square yard but only by private negotiation.
8. We have perused the Notifications, the other pleadings and the order passed by the learned single Judge and also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
9. It is not in dispute that the property belongs to the Temple. By the impugned Notification dated 25-8-2001 published in the A.P. Gazette, the land in question was sought to be sold by public auction and objections were invited from the interested persons. The appellants who are the occupants of the property also submitted their objections. According to them, the property cannot be sold in public auction and that it should be sold to them only by way of private negotiation at a reasonable price as they are already in occupation of the property. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the earlier Notification dated 8-10-1996 issued by the Endowments Department to sell the property by private negotiation has not been cancelled and, therefore, the present Notification issued by the Department is non-est in law and has no legal sanction.
10. We are unable to agree with this contention. By the present Notification, by which objections were invited from the
interested persons for the sale of the land in question by public auction, the earlier Notification issued by the Government has been impliedly superseded. It is not the case of the appellants that pursuant to the earlier Notification, certain offers have been made and accepted by the Government. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that the Notification dated 25-8-2001, now issued by the Department of Endowments is valid in law.
11. Section 80 of the Act deals with alienation of immovable property according to which any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be null and void unless any such transaction is effected with the prior sanction of the Commissioner. The Commissioner may after publishing in the A.P. Gazette the particulars relating to the proposed transaction and inviting any objections and suggestions with respect thereto and considering all objections and suggestions, if any, received from the trustee or other person having interest, accord such sanction. In the instant case the Notification was issued with the permission of the Commissioner concerned. Therefore, the Notification is valid in law.
12. This Court in Vangala Narasimhachayulu v. State of A.P., , has held that disposal of property owned by religious and charitable institutions should be by way of public auction and that the permission granted to sell the property by private negotiation cannot be sustained. It is also held that disposal by private negotiations may be allowed only under compelling circumstances. The case on hand is not one such. The Notification for public auction has already been issued. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80 says that every sale of any such immovable property sanctioned by the Commissioner under
Clause (b) shall be effected by tender-cum-public auction in the prescribed manner subject to the confirmation by the Commissioner within a period prescribed. Provided that the Government may, in the interest of the institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded therefor in writing, permit the sale of such immovable property, otherwise than by public auction. In the instant case since the Notification has already been issued, the intention of the Government to sell the property by public auction is explicit. Therefore, the Government has to only follow the procedure laid down under Section 80 of the Act.
13. The learned single Judge, as already noticed hereinbefore, has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment following the decision of the Supreme Court in Chenchu Kami Reddy’s case, (supra). It is useful to reproduce a portion of paragraph 6 of the said decision in the present context:
We cannot conclude without observing that property of such institutions or endowments must be jealously protected. It must be protected, for, a large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it (that is the raison d’etre of the Act itself). The authorities exercising the powers under the Act must not only be most alert and vigilant in such matters but also show awareness of the ways of the present day world as also the ugly realities of the world of today. They cannot afford to take things at their face value or make a less than the closest-and -best-attention approach to guard against all pitfalls. The approving authority must be aware that in such matters the trustees, or persons authorised to sell by private negotiations, can, in a given case, enter into a secret or invisible underhand deal or understanding with the purchasers at the cost of the concerned institution. Those who are willing to purchase by private negotiations can also bid at a public auction. Why would they feel shy or be deterred from bidding at a public auction? Why then permit sale by private negotiations which will not be visible to the public-eye and may even give rise to
public suspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so? And care must be taken to fix a reserve price after ascertaining the market value for the sake of safeguarding the interest of the endowment.
14. In Chenchu Rami Reddy’s case also, the question raised was whether the land belonging to charitable endowment can be sold by private negotiation instead of public auction? The Supreme Court directed that the sale of property should be by way of public auction and deprecated the proposal of sale by private negotiation and reversed the judgment rendered by this Court.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent-authorities are directed to proceed further in the sale of the property in question by public auction. The appellants herein may also participate in the public auction if they so desire. The appeal fails and is dismissed.