Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowment Act 1966
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowment Act 1966

    Hitakarini Samaj v. State Of A.P. And Ors.

    (1) THE points raised in the Review Petition in regard to dismissal of Special Leave Petition(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. 200.00 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. 1,30,980.00 in the place of the meagre annual rent of Rs. 2,400.00 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.

    --- *** ---

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Hitakarini Samaj v. State Of A.P. And Ors.
    (Jul 27, 2000)