APHC010117982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6405/2025 Between: Karampudi Chennakesava Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The Stateof Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivas Pathuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Ms. Anne Devi Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 19.03.2024. 2 3. It is contended by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a total extent of Ac.4.32 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.92/1, and an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.96/1 of Harischandrapuram Village, Tullur Mandal (erstwhile Mangalagiri Taluk), Guntur District. The said property was purchased by petitioner’s wife Late Smt.Karampudi Sujatha under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doct.No.451 of 2003, dated 08.05.2003 from one Ichampati Pardhasaradhacharyulu. The said land is classified as "Adhyapakam Inam", in the Inam Fair Register prepared by the Inams' Commissioner of the Province of Madras and the Title Deed Numbers are shown as T.D.Nos.527 and 145 respectively. It is contended that the record was prepared during the 19thCentury and the names of the grantees are shown as "Ichampati Venkayamma and Ichampati Appalacharyulu & another". 4. The 2nd respondent referring to the A.P. (A.A.) Inams (Abolition& Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 & Rules, 1957 (As Amended by Act No.16 of 2013), observed that pattas given by the temple servicedars were in lieu of salaries would become void. The 2nd respondent further based his findings on the District Endowments Officer’s proceedings stating that he did not recommend for deletion of the subject lands from prohibited list. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the subject inam in the case is adhyapaka inam which was given in recognition of personal services rendered by an individual and has nothing to do with the institution and he further relies on the certification in Form II issued in the said regard, which depicts the subject land as an inam land in ryotwari village and 3 as not held by any institution. The learned counsel thus argues that the earlier direction of this Court was to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioners by hearing all the parties. The learned counsel of the petitioner further argues that the said order of this Court has not been followed by the 2nd respondent. 6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration by 2nd respondent afresh, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:01.04.2025 ANI 4 65 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.6405 of 2025 Date:01.04.2025 ANI