# GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 17 S.C.R. 376
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-09-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 7759-7760 of 2014
- **Bench:** Hemant Gupta, Vikram Nath
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gulf-oil-corporation-ltd-v-the-state-of-telangana-ors-35512
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987- ss.75, 80, 82 - Telangana Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties
and other Rights (Other than Agricultural Land) Leases and Licenses
Rules, 2003- r.15- High Court inter alia ordered the appellant-lessee
to be evicted under the 1987 Act - Whether the land in question is
agricultural land to which the 1987 Act is applicable and the lease
in favor of the lessee stands cancelled in terms of s.82(1) of the
Act; and whether the parties went to trial with the knowledge that
the land in question was agricultural land in the proceedings
between the parties before the Endowments Tribunal - Held: Nature
of land is distinct from the use of the land - Since the land is
agricultural land, its use for non-agricultural purposes would not
alter the nature of the land as an agricultural land - s.82 of the
1987 Act mentions "any lease of agricultural land....", therefore,
the lease has to be of agricultural land irrespective of the use to
which the lessee may put such agricultural land to - Language of
the statute refers to nature of the land and not the use thereof -
Therefore, in the present case, even in terms of the written arguments
raised by the lessee before the Tribunal, the use of land for nonagricultural purposes would be irrelevant for statutory cancellation
of the lease of agricultural lands u/s.82 of the 1987 Act - Further,
1987 Act is a Code in itself providing for constitution of the
Endowments Tribunal, appeal, revision and review - The strict rule
of procedure contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in
respect of pleadings and evidence cannot be extended to the Tribunal
constituted for specific purpose - In the instant case, since the
lessees were aware of the fact that the Mutt-The lessor claims the
land to be agricultural land and statutory cancellation of the lease
was being averred for the reason that the leased land was
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 376
376
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
377
agricultural, therefore, the lessees cannot complain of any violation
of principles of natural justice or strict rules of pleading as is
required under the CPC - The parties were aware of the controversy
about the nature of the land - Thus, the lessee cannot be permitted
to turn around to dispute the nature of land leased to them - Further,
r.15 of the 2003 Rules will have no application to the agricultural
land in view of the fact that s.82(3) and (4) is applicable only to the
land and property which is not agricultural - Since the land has
been found to be agricultural, therefore, 2003 Rules would not be
applicable to the land in question - Thus, the direction in CA
No.7761 of 2014, to consider the request of the lessee to consider
the grant of lease u/r.15 is untenable and is set aside - Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments
Act, 1966 - Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Applicability of -
Held: The Inams Abolition Act is not applicable to the Mutt for the
reason that the Act itself is not applicable to charitable and the
religious institutions in terms of s.1(2)(i) up to 26.12.1985 and
thereafter in terms of first proviso to s.4(1) of the Inams Abolition
Act - Thus, any finding recorded by the Joint Collector is only for
the purposes of negating the claim of Power of Attorney holder
claiming occupancy rights - It has been categorically held by the
Joint Collector that the Act is not applicable to the Mutt - Telangana
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act,
1994.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 What is the effect of the order dated 25.8.2007
passed by the Joint Commissioner under the Inams Abolition
Act?
The Inams Abolition Act abolished all inams (grants) by
the Nizam. The Act contemplates adjudication of matters in
relation to grant of occupancy rights and certificates in respect of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,942 of 90,955. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD.
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7759-7760 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987- ss.75, 80, 82 - Telangana Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties
and other Rights (Other than Agricultural Land) Leases and Licenses
Rules, 2003- r.15- High Court inter alia ordered the appellant-lessee
to be evicted under the 1987 Act - Whether the land in question is
agricultural land to which the 1987 Act is applicable and the lease
in favor of the lessee stands cancelled in terms of s.82(1) of the
Act; and whether the parties went to trial with the knowledge that
the land in question was agricultural land in the proceedings
between the parties before the Endowments Tribunal - Held: Nature
of land is distinct from the use of the land - Since the land is
agricultural land, its use for non-agricultural purposes would not
alter the nature of the land as an agricultural land - s.82 of the
1987 Act mentions "any lease of agricultural land....", therefore,
the lease has to be of agricultural land irrespective of the use to
which the lessee may put such agricultural land to - Language of
the statute refers to nature of the land and not the use thereof -
Therefore, in the present case, even in terms of the written arguments
raised by the lessee before the Tribunal, the use of land for nonagricultural purposes would be irrelevant for statutory cancellation
of the lease of agricultural lands u/s.82 of the 1987 Act - Further,
1987 Act is a Code in itself providing for constitution of the
Endowments Tribunal, appeal, revision and review - The strict rule
of procedure contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in
respect of pleadings and evidence cannot be extended to the Tribunal
constituted for specific purpose - In the instant case, since the
lessees were aware of the fact that the Mutt-The lessor claims the
land to be agricultural land and statutory cancellation of the lease
was being averred for the reason that the leased land was
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 376
376
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
377
agricultural, therefore, the lessees cannot complain of any violation
of principles of natural justice or strict rules of pleading as is
required under the CPC - The parties were aware of the controversy
about the nature of the land - Thus, the lessee cannot be permitted
to turn around to dispute the nature of land leased to them - Further,
r.15 of the 2003 Rules will have no application to the agricultural
land in view of the fact that s.82(3) and (4) is applicable only to the
land and property which is not agricultural - Since the land has
been found to be agricultural, therefore, 2003 Rules would not be
applicable to the land in question - Thus, the direction in CA
No.7761 of 2014, to consider the request of the lessee to consider
the grant of lease u/r.15 is untenable and is set aside - Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments
Act, 1966 - Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Applicability of -
Held: The Inams Abolition Act is not applicable to the Mutt for the
reason that the Act itself is not applicable to charitable and the
religious institutions in terms of s.1(2)(i) up to 26.12.1985 and
thereafter in terms of first proviso to s.4(1) of the Inams Abolition
Act - Thus, any finding recorded by the Joint Collector is only for
the purposes of negating the claim of Power of Attorney holder
claiming occupancy rights - It has been categorically held by the
Joint Collector that the Act is not applicable to the Mutt - Telangana
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act,
1994.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 What is the effect of the order dated 25.8.2007
passed by the Joint Commissioner under the Inams Abolition
Act?
The Inams Abolition Act abolished all inams (grants) by
the Nizam. The Act contemplates adjudication of matters in
relation to grant of occupancy rights and certificates in respect of
inam lands covered by the Act and vested with the Government,
inquiry into the nature and history of such lands, determination
of compensation payable to the Inamdar and apportionment
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
thereto. Sections 4 to 8 of the Inams Abolition Act came into
force on 1.11.1973 i.e., the date of grant of occupancy rights under
the Inams Act. It appears that the Mutt entered into an agreement
with one Kalyani Narsing Rao. He filed an application for grant of
occupancy rights. Such application was allowed by the Revenue
Divisional Commissioner on 27.11.2004. The Revenue Divisional
Officer was considering an application for issuance of occupancy
rights certificate to the general power of attorney holder of the
Mutt. The application was allowed. In an appeal under Section
24 of the Inams Abolition Act, a finding was returned that the
land in question was converted into for nonagricultural use before
1973. The issue no. 2 therein was to the effect whether the land
in question was under agriculture as on the crucial date. The
finding on the said issue is that it was being used for nonagricultural purposes. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted to
abolish the inams and to confer occupancy rights to the tiller.
Since the land was an inam land given to the charitable and
religious institutions, it was found to be exempt from the operation
of the Inams Abolition Act. The Joint Collector held that the land
is an inam land and in terms of proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act,
the inam was held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious
institutions, therefore, no person shall be entitled to be registered
as an occupant and the institution alone shall be entitled to be
registered as the occupant. It is the said order of the Revenue
Divisional Officer which was set aside by the Joint Collector.
[Paras 45 and 46][402-D-F; 403-B-D]
1.2 The scope of inquiry under the said Act was restricted
to grant of occupancy rights which was negated for multiple
reasons including the fact that the land was not under agriculture
on the crucial date. Since the Inams Abolition Act is a special Act
in respect of abolition of inams and conferment of occupancy
rights, it is an order not by a Tribunal having a plenary jurisdiction.
The Tribunal under the Inams Abolition Act had limited
jurisdiction to decide the questions arising under the Inams
Abolition Act. Therefore, the findings recorded in such
proceedings neither act as estoppel, nor res judicata for any other
proceedings. The proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act were
initiated by a Power of Attorney holder claiming occupancy rights
on the basis of an agreement to sell. The Mutt was represented
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
379
by a Power of Attorney holder who was claiming independent
rights, therefore, the previous proceedings were not between
the same parties as the Mutt was not a party in its own rights but
through an attorney who was claiming independent right in
himself. Therefore, the findings recorded therein are not relevant
or binding in respect of proceedings under another statute,
enacted for different objective to protect the inam land given to
the charitable and religious institutions. The Inams Abolition Act
is not applicable to the Mutt for the reason that the Act itself is
not applicable to charitable and the religious institutions in terms
of Section 1(2)(i) up to 26.12.1985 and thereafter in terms of first
proviso to Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act. Thus, any
finding recorded by the Joint Collector is only for the purposes
of negating the claim of Power of Attorney holder claiming
occupancy rights. It has been categorically held by the Joint
Collector that the Act is not applicable to the Mutt. [Paras 47, 49
and 50][404-H; 405-A-B]
2.1 Whether the land in question is agricultural land to which
the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 is applicable and the lease in favor of the
lessee stands cancelled in terms of Section 82(1) of the Act?
The primary argument of the learned counsel for the lessees
is that there was no pleading that the land in question was
agricultural land, therefore, the lessees were not made aware of
the fact that the lease stands statutorily cancelled. The said
argument is not tenable for the reason that the Inspector in his
report dated 29.1.2008 and 16.12.2008 reported that the lands in
question are agricultural lands and that lease of such lands stands
cancelled. The lessee had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 24440 of
2010 challenging the continuation of proceedings before the
Endowments Tribunal. In the counter affidavit dated 7.12.2010
filed on behalf of the Mutt, it was stated that the leases have
become null and void under Section 82 of the 1987 Act. The writ
petition was dismissed on 20.1.2011. The High Court also noticed
the argument of the Mutt that in terms of Section 82, the leases
stood cancelled. The High Court had called for the record of the
fourth respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner (Endowment).
The argument that the land is agricultural land was raised by the
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Mutt and also recorded in the report of the Inspector. Thus, it is
noted that lessees were well aware of the nature of the land as
agricultural land. Such order of the High Court has attained finality.
The Mutt has based its arguments on the premise that the land
in question is agricultural land. [Paras 51-56][406-B-D, F-G, H;
407-F-G]
2.2 A perusal of the written arguments shows that the lessees
have submitted that the land is being used for non-agricultural
purposes. The entire argument is based upon use of the land for
non-agricultural purposes. The nature of land is distinct from the
use of the land. Since the land is agricultural land, its use for nonagricultural purposes would not alter the nature of the land as an
agricultural land. Section 82 of the 1987 Act mentions "any lease
of agricultural land....", therefore, the lease has to be of
agricultural land irrespective of the use to which the lessee may
put such agricultural land to. The language of the statute refers
to nature of the land and not the use thereof. Therefore, even in
terms of the written arguments raised by the lessee before the
Tribunal, the use of land for non-agricultural purposes would be
irrelevant for statutory cancellation of the lease of agricultural
lands under Section 82 of the 1987 Act. The distinction between
agricultural and non-agricultural land sought to be drawn from
the reading of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural
Assessments Act, 1963 repealed by the A.P Agricultural Land
(Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, is not
tenable. The distinction between the categories of land leads to
consequence of higher assessment in the case of non-agricultural
land. The lessee has not led any evidence that they are paying
levy as per the rates fixed under this statute as that of nonagricultural land. In respect of the 1987 Act, the Division Bench
of the High Court in Siddhartha Academy held that use of land for
non-agricultural purpose is immaterial for the purpose of statutory
cancellation of lease deed, as provided under Section 82(1) of
the said Act. The SLP (Civil) Nos. 25617-25619 of 2013 stood
withdrawn on 35 27.2.2017. Thus, the order passed by the
Division Bench had attained finality. [Paras 57, 58, 60, 61][408G-H; 409-A-C; 410-B, F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
381
Siddartha Academy of General and Technical
Education v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments
2010 SCC Online AP 461 - referred to.
3.1 Whether the parties went to trial with the knowledge
that the land in question was agricultural land in the proceedings
between the parties before the Endowments Tribunal?
The 1987 Act is a Code in itself providing for constitution
of the Endowments Tribunal, appeal, revision and review. The
strict rule of procedure contemplated by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in respect of pleadings and evidence cannot be
extended to the Tribunal constituted for specific purpose. Since
the lessees were aware of the fact that the Mutt claims the land
to be agricultural land and statutory cancellation of the lease was
being averred for the reason that the leased land was agricultural,
therefore, the lessees cannot complain of any violation of
principles of natural justice or strict rules of pleading as is required
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the parties
were aware of the controversy about the nature of the land. Thus,
the lessee cannot be permitted to turn around to dispute the
nature of land leased to them. [Paras 63, 66][411-B-D; 412-A]
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr. (2008) 17 SCC
491 : [2008] 14 SCR 621; Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead)
by Lrs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors. (1987) 2
SCC 555 : [1987] 2 SCR 805; Union of India v. Ibrahim
Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148 : [2012] 8 SCR 35;
Biraji alias Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap & Ors.
(2020) 10 SCC 729 - held inapplicable.
Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao AIR
1963 SC 884 : [1963] SCR 208; Swamy Atmananda &
Ors. v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors. (2005) 10
SCC 51 : [2005] 3 SCR 556; Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v.
Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 1 : [2019] 10 SCR 88 -
relied on .
3.2 There is merit in the argument raised by the lessees
that the lease executed prior to the commencement of 1987 Act
would not be annulled for the reason that there was no prior
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
approval. The leases were granted prior to the commencement
of the 1987 Act but even under the 1966 Act, Section 70
prohibited lease of the inam land if its term exceeded six years.
The lease of land measuring 143 acres vide lease deed dated
23.7.1964; 257 acres 19 guntas vide lease deed dated 14.9.1966
and 2 acres 32 guntas vide lease deed dated 21.3.1969 were not
preceded with any prior approval of the competent authority.
Reliance is placed upon the note dated 24.2.1964 but such note
is part of the decision-making process as no approval was
communicated to either the lessee or the lessor or to any person.
In fact, the said communication is a note of Second Secretary to
Government Home (Endowments-III) Department that lease for
a term of 99 years cannot be construed as a transfer of ownership
of the endowed lands by outright sale and is prohibited under
Rule 331 of Hyderabad State Endowment Rules and Regulations.
It is not a communication addressed either to the lessee or to
the lessor or to any other person or institution. The regulation
331 prohibits the possession over and transfer of the nuzli lands
(tax bearing lands) from generation to generation in future. The
note dated 24.02.1964 relied upon to argue that it leads to
approval of lease is not a decision which can be said to be effective
and binding in view of the judgements of this Court. The only
approval of land measuring 173 acres and 19 guntas is dated
10.5.1976. Though there is a reference to the communication of
the Commissioner Endowment dated 29.4.1975 in respect of
three previous lease deeds, but there is no communication to
the Mutt either of the letter dated 10.5.1976 or of 29.4.1975.
Section 82 does not make any exception of the lease granted
with approval. The approval is mentioned only in Section 75 of
the 1987 Act. Even if such approval is treated to have been granted
in respect of the entire land, the lease granted with approval is
relevant only for the purposes of Section 75 of the 1987 Act and
not for the purposes of Section 82 of the said Act. [Paras 6769][412-B-G; 414-A-C]
3.3 Similarly, the argument that the land now falls within
the urban agglomeration in view of the enactment of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is again not tenable.
Firstly, the said Act stands repealed on 22.3.1999. Still further,
the mere fact that the land has come within the municipal limits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
would not make the land as non-agricultural land. It only means
that the land within the municipal limits can be utilized or the
buildings be constructed in terms of the provisions of the
Municipal Laws applicable thereto. Similarly, the argument that
the land in question falls with the Zonal Development Plan for
Kukatpally as per the communication of the Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority is again not tenable. The Zonal
Development Plan is future planning of the development of the
area. Thus, in future, the land can be used only according to Zonal
Development Plan but that does not mean that the agricultural
nature of the land has ceased to exist. Therefore, the said
communication is also not tenable. [Paras 70, 71][414-C-F]
3.4 In Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2014, there is a direction to
consider the request of the lessee. However, Rule 15 of the
Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Immovable Properties and other Rights (Other than
Agricultural Land) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 will have
no application to the agricultural land in view of the fact that
Section 82(3) and (4) is applicable only to the land and property
which is not agricultural. Since the land has been found to be
agricultural, therefore, 2003 Rules would not be applicable to
the land in question. Thus, the direction to consider the request
of the lessee to consider the grant of lease under Rule 15 is
untenable and is set aside. [Paras 72, 73][414-F-H]
Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade
and Anr. (1999) 5 SCC 590 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 514;
Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Officer in Charge (Court
of Wards) (1976) 3 SCC 864 : [1977] 1 SCR 146;
Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (SMT) v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Gujrat (1993) 4 Supp SCC 707 : [1993] 2
Suppl. SCR 264; ITC Limited v. Blue Coast Hotels
Limited (2018) 15 SCC 99 : [2018] 5 SCR 516; Mahesh
Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11
SCC 141 : [2009] 3 SCR 1122; State of A.P. v. Nallamilli
Rami Reddy & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 708 : [2001] 2 Suppl.
SCR 287; Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao &
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Ors. AIR 1956 SC 593 : [1956] SCR 451; A.P. Punjabi
Sabha, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad 2004
SCC OnLine AP 689 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 514
referred to
Para 16
[1977] 1 SCR 146
referred to
Para 18
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 264
referred to
Para 18
[2018] 5 SCR 516
referred to
Para 18
[2009] 3 SCR 1122
referred to
Para 22
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 287
referred to
Para 27
[1956] SCR 451
referred to
Para 37
[1963] SCR 208
relied on
Para 38
[2005] 3 SCR 556
relied on
Para 37
[2019] 10 SCR 88
relied on
Para 68
[2008] 14 SCR 621
held inapplicable
Para 17
[1987] 2 SCR 805
held inapplicable
Para 17
[2012] 8 SCR 35
held inapplicable
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 77597760 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 31893 of
2011 and W.P. No. 8005 of 2012.
With
Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2014.
Harish Salve, Parag P. Tripathi, Kapil Sibal, K. V. Vishwanathan,
C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advs., Ms. Mumtaz Bhalla, Karan Dev Chopra,
Neeraj Malik, Lakshya Kampani, Srinivasan Ramaswamy, Shagun Ruhil,
Abhay Kumar, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, Ms. Shipra Jain, Nizan
Pasha, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Amartya Sharan, M. G. Aravind Raj,
Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kumar Tyagi, P.
Srinivas Reddy for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Mahfooz Ahsan
Nazki, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in Civil Appeal Nos. 7759-7760 of 2014 is to an
order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 31893 of 2011 whereby the appellant herein i.e., Gulf Oil
Corporation Limited1 was ordered to be evicted under the provisions of
The Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 19872. The lessee claimed leasehold rights on the
land admeasuring 540 acres and 30 guntas situated at village Kukatpally,
Hyderabad.
2. Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2014 has been preferred by Sri Udasin
Mutt3, the lessor of the said land, arising out of Writ Petition No. 8005 of
2012. The said writ petition was decided along with the writ petition filed
by the lessee. The Mutt has claimed mesne profits in terms of Section
83(6) of the 1987 Act. However, the writ petition was disposed of with
a direction to consider the request of the lessee under Rule 15 of the
Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Immovable Properties and other Rights (Other than Agricultural Land)
Leases and Licenses Rules, 20034, published vide Government Order
Memo No. 866 dated 8.8.2003.
3. The dry soil land measuring more than 540 acres and 30 guntas
was granted as inam land by the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Mutt
somewhere in the year 1873. The Mutt entered into an agreement of
lease with M/s Indian Detonators, predecessor of the lessee, on
23.07.1964 in respect of 143 acres of inam lands, bearing survey no.
1010/8 to 1010/10. The lessee, claiming to be the successor-in-interest
of M/s Indian Detonators, relies on the permission said to be granted by
the Government to enter into lease of the inam land on 24.02.1964.
4. The lessor thereafter entered into an agreement with M/s Indian
Detonators on 14.9.1966 to take on lease 257 acres and 19 guntas of the
inam land. The supplementary lease deed dated 21.03.1969 was also
executed for an area of 2 acres and 32 guntas of land.
1 For short, the 'Lessee'
2 For short, the '1987 Act'
3 For short the 'Lessor' or 'Mutt'
4 For short, the '2003 Rules'
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
5. The Commissioner, Endowments Department communicated
to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department
on 29.4.1975 to sanction proposed long lease of 99 years of 137 Acres
19 guntas of the land. It was also communicated that since the lease
was exceeding 6 years, therefore, sanction of the Government is
necessary under Section 70 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 19665. Section 70 of the 1966
Act reads thus:
"70. Lease, sale, etc., of inams to be void in certain cases:-
(1)
Any lease for a term exceeding six years and any gift, sale,
exchange or mortgage of an inam land granted for the
support or maintenance of a charitable or religious institution
or endowment or for the performance of a religious or public
charity or service, shall be null and void unless any such
transaction, not being a gift, is effected with the prior
sanction of the Government.
(2)
Such prior sanction may be accorded by the Government
where they consider that the transaction is-
(i)
necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment;
(ii) consistent with the objects of the institution or
endowment and;
(iii) the consideration thereof is reasonable and proper.
(3)
The provisions of this section shall not apply to any inam
land in the Andhra Area of the State."
6. It was on 10.05.1976, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
accorded sanction for lease of land measuring 137 acres and 19 guntas
to M/s. Indian Detonators Limited. Subsequently, on 20.04.1978, the
lessor entered into another lease deed with M/s Indian Detonators Limited
for a period of 99 years for land measuring 137 acres 19 guntas.
7. A perusal of the lease deed dated 23.07.1964 in respect of 143
acres and the lease deed dated 14.09.1966 in respect of 257 acres and
19 guntas of land specifically mention that the lease are of inam land. A
summary of the various lease deeds executed by the lessor are produced
hereinunder:
5 For short, the '1966 Act'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
387
8. The 1987 Act came into force on 21.04.1987, repealing the
1966 Act. Section 82 of the 1987 Act has a non-obstante clause so as to
override and cancel any lease of agricultural land other than lease to a
landless poor person. Section 82 of the 1987 Act reads thus:
"82. Lease of Agricultural Lands:-
(1)
Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or
endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment
subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall,
notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being
in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person
stands cancelled.
(2)
xxx
xxx
xxx
(3)
The authority to sanction the lease or licence in respect of
any property or any right or interest thereon belonging to or
given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or
religious institution or endowment, the manner in which and
the period for which such lease or licence shall be such as
may be prescribed.
(4)
Every lease or licence of any immovable property, other
than the Agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed
for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or
endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules
as may be prescribed under sub-section (3).
(5)
6[The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act XVIII of 1956) and the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950) shall not apply to any lease of
land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of
any charitable or religious institutions or endowment as
defined in this Act.]"
9. The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Bill (Bill No. XVIII of 1954)
was published in Hyderabad Gazette Extraordinary No.86 on 10.04.1954.
One of the objects for the enactment of such legislation was the abolition
of all inams, other than village service inams and inams held by religious
and charitable institutions. In pursuance of such Bill, the Hyderabad
Abolition of Inams Act, 19557 came to be enacted. Such Act received
the assent of the President on 16.07.1955 and was published in the
Hyderabad Gazette Extraordinary No. 90 of 20.07.1955. The enactment
is now known as the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Initially,
the Inams Abolition Act was not applicable to inams held by or for the
benefit of charitable and religious institutions [Section 1(2)(i)]. The said
provision was however deleted by Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act,
1985 (Act No. 29 of 1985) with effect from 26.12.1985. The Inams
Abolition Act was then subsequently amended vide Andhra Pradesh
(Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 19 of 1994), whereby a proviso was
inserted to Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act with retrospective
effect from 26.12.1985, the date when Section 1(2)(i) was deleted. The
inserted clause and other relevant provisions of the said Inams Abolition
Act read thus:
8"[1(2) It extends to the whole of the Hyderabad State and shall
be applicable to all inams except -
(i)
inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious
institutions;
6 Added by Act No. 27 of 2002, w.e.f. 26-8-2002.
7 Inams Abolition Act
8 omitted by A.P. (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 29 of 1985) w.e.f. 26.12.1985
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
(ii)
inams held for rendering village service useful to the
Government or to the village community including
sethsendhi, neeradi and balutha inams.]
xx
xx
xx
3. Abolition and vesting of inams and the consequences thereof-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
usage, settlement, contract, grant, sanad, order or other
instrument, Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of
law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a
Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date
of vesting, all inams shall be deemed to have been abolished
and shall vest in the State.
(2) Save as expressely provided by or under the provisions of
this Act and with effect from the date of vesting, the following
consequences shall ensue namely:-
xxx
xxx
xxx
(c) all such inam lands shall be liable to payment of land
revenue;
(d) all rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties,
accruing in respect of such inam lands, on or after the date of
vesting, shall be payable to the State and not to the Inamdar,
and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall
not be valid;
 4((1) xxx
xxx
xxx
9[Provided that where inams are held by or for the benefit of
charitable and religious institutions no person shall be entitled to
be registered as an occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the
institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant
of all inam lands other than those specified in clauses (a) and (c)
above without restriction of extent to four and half times the family
holding and without the condition of personal cultivation:
Provided further that where any person other than the
concerned charitable or religious institution has been registered
9 inserted by A.P. (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 19 of 1994) with retrospective
effect from 26.12.1985.
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
as an occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 after the
commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition
of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1985 such registration shall and shall
be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall
be given to such registration]"
xxx
xxx
xxx
9. Vesting of certain buildings and inam lands used for nonagricultural purposes.-
(1) Every private building, situated within an inam shall, with effect
from the date of vesting, vest in the person who owned it
immediately before that date.
(2) Where an inam land has been converted for any purpose
unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be
entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not
void or illegal under any law in force.
(3) The vesting of private buildings or lands under sub-section (1)
or (2) shall be subject to the payment of non-agricultural assessment
that may be imposed by Government from time to time."
10. Section 82 of the 1987 Act statutorily cancelled the lease deeds
if endowed for the purpose of any institution. Section 75 of the 1987 Act
declares that any lease and any gifts, sale, exchange or mortgage of an
inam land, granted for the support or maintenance of charitable or religious
institution, or endowment or for the performance of a religious or public
charity or service shall be null and void, unless such transaction, not
being a gift, is affected with prior sanction of the Government. A perusal
of the facts would show that prior approval was only in respect of 137
acres 19 guntas of land on the basis of which registered lease deed was
executed on 20.04.1978. However, lease deed dated 23.07.1964 in respect
of 143 acres, lease deed dated 14.09.1966 in respect of 257 acres 19
guntas and supplementary lease deed dated 21.3.1969 in respect of 2
Acres 32 guntas were not preceded with any prior sanction. Though
there is a note of the Second Secretary of the Government that lease for
99 years would not amount to transfer of property, but such note is on
the file of the Government and had not been communicated to any of the
interested parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
11. It is submitted that the lessee faced no issues till November
2006 when the previous Mahant Baba Sagardas was unceremoniously
removed. It was on 24.08.2007, a notice on behalf of Sri Arun Das ji,
Mahant of the Mutt, for delivery of vacant possession, was served treating
lessee as an encroacher. It was later on 24.12.2007, the Mutt wrote to
the Assistant Commissioner (Endowments) for eviction of the lessee,
inter alia on the ground that a graveyard on a land measuring 20 acres
has come up and thus there is a violation of the terms of the lease. The
Assistant Commissioner called for an inspection report from the office
of the Inspector, Endowments Department. A report was submitted on
29.01.2008, communicating to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments
Department that the three lease deeds are without prior Government
approval. Only the lease deed dated 20.04.1978 was with prior approval.
It was communicated that the 4 lease deeds have totally become null
and void as per the 1966 Act, 1987 Act and the Rules framed under the
Government Order No.866 dated 08.08.2003.
12. The proceedings leading to the present appeals were initiated
when a show cause notice dated 20.12.2008 was issued by Deputy
Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. The proceedings
initiated in pursuance of show cause notice to the lessee was assigned
an Original Application No.21/2008 before the Deputy Commissioner,
Endowments Department, later renumbered as OA No. 579 of 2010
after the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal. The lessee was asked
to remove the encroachment upon the land belonging to the Mutt.
13. It has been argued that the Endowments Tribunal passed a
patently perverse order of eviction on the ground that the leased land
was agricultural in nature and therefore, the lease deed was void as per
Section 82 of the 1987 Act. The writ petition against the order passed by
the Endowments Tribunal remained unsuccessful. It is the said order
passed in the writ petition which is the subject matter of challenge in the
present appeals.
14. The argument of Mr. Harish Salve, appearing for the lessee,
is that it was neither asserted by the Mutt, nor any issue was framed
regarding treating the land as agricultural land. Therefore, in the absence
of any evidence of the land being an agriculture land, the finding recorded
by the Endowments Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court suffers
from patent illegality as without any plea or evidence, a finding has been
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
returned to declare the lease deed executed in favor of the appellant as
cancelled on the ground that the lease was of an agricultural land.
15. Mr. Salve referred to an order passed by the Joint Collector in
an appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, wherein a finding was returned that the
land in question was converted into for non-agricultural use before 1973.
The order under challenge in appeal was an order passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer dated 27.11.2004.
16. It is argued that the order of the Joint Collector is final and act
as an estoppel to the effect that the leased inam lands are non-agricultural
in nature and the factum of the Endowments Tribunal having delved into
the same by giving a perverse finding is impermissible. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment of this Court reported as Hope Plantations Ltd. v.
Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr.10 that if an issue has been
finally determined, parties cannot dispute such finding.
17. The issue as to whether the land is agricultural land was raised
for the first time in the written arguments submitted by the Mutt before
the Endowments Tribunal relying upon a report of the Assistant
Commissioner (Endowments). It is submitted that the argument raised
by the Mutt was dealt with in the written arguments raised by the lessee
specifically contending that a new plea was raised for the first time in
the written arguments that the land was agricultural land. Reliance is
placed upon judgment of this Court reported as Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima
Mandal & Anr.11 wherein it was held that once a particular plea is not
raised and the defendants had no opportunity to resist or oppose such a
relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. Reliance was also placed
upon a judgment of this Court reported as Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead)
by Lrs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors.12 .
18. It is argued that the distinction between agricultural and nonagricultural land is evident from the reading of Section 3 of the Andhra
Pradesh Non-Agricultural Assessments Act, 1963, which provides for
assessment of non-agricultural land. The A.P Agricultural Land
(Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 repealed the 1963
Act by keeping the distinction between the agricultural and non-agricultural
10 (1999) 5 SCC 590
11 (2008) 17 SCC 491
12 (1987) 2 SCC 555
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
393
land. Reference was made to Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli that the land in Section
1(b) includes all kinds of benefits pertaining to land and that land revenue
is paid for non-agricultural land as well. It has been argued that Section
82 would be applicable only if lease of land is used for agricultural purpose
alone. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court reported
as Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Officer in Charge (Court of
Wards)13, Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (SMT) v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Gujrat14 and ITC Limited v. Blue Coast Hotels Limited15
dealing with the agricultural land in the taxation laws such as wealth tax
and income tax. It is further contended that the lease deeds executed
for a period of 99 years could not be terminated in violation of the terms
of a notice period of 5 years, as well as on a non-existing ground of
termination of lease. It is also argued that the report of the Assistant
Collector, Endowments is on inquiry and not evidence before the Tribunal
which can be made basis of terminating the lease in favor of the lessee.
19. It is contended that the notice for termination of lease was
issued on 11.10.2007 on the ground that Mutt had entered into lease
agreements with IDL and IDL Chemicals Limited and not with the
appellant; the appellant abandoned most of the land, thereby allowing
encroachers to occupy the land and that the land of Mutt is being converted
into burial grounds.
20. It was averred that eviction proceedings can only be in
consonance with the terms of the eviction notice which allows no room
for vagueness and ambiguity. In the notice, no issue qua the nature of
the leased inam lands was raised but was surreptitiously supplanted by
the Mutt in its written arguments. The same is erroneously considered
and decided by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. It is only
Section 75 of the 1987 Act that would be applicable which contemplates
prior permission of the Government in the case of inam lands.
21. It is argued that evidence can be led in support of the plea
raised. Since there is no plea raised by the Mutt that the land is agricultural
land, therefore, no amount of evidence in absence of plea can be
considered by the Court. Reliance is placed upon Union of India v.
13 (1976) 3 SCC 864
14 (1993) Supp 4 SCC 707
15 (2018) 15 SCC 99
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. THE STATE OF
TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Ibrahim Uddin & Anr.16, and Biraji alias Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya
Pratap & Ors.17.
22. The appellants further argued that any finding of a court of
law in the absence of evidence cannot be sustained. Such finding based
on a document which is not placed on record is violation of principles of
natural justice, fair play and fairness. Reliance is placed upon Mahesh
Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra18. It is argued that since
the report of the Inspector dated 29.1.2008 was not placed on record,
therefore, the lessee was not given a chance to rebut the assertion that
the land is an agricultural land.
23.