COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ;; AMARAVATI^J twentieth day of march ■A IN THE HIGH K- Pee K THURSDAY, THE (17, ?o thousand and twenty five V TWO PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO xAfPiT appeal no- 274 OF 2025 Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters dated31.12.2024in W.P.No.4168of2013onthefileofthe HighCou . HONOURABLE SRI Patent against the order Writ Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Rep. by Tirupati District. Executive Officer, Tirupati No.6 in W.P. ..Appellant/Respondent . Venkati Veera Raghava Reddy, Dharmasala Society, Saraswati Nagar , Nellore District, Rep. by its President. ...Respondent/Petitioner AND 1 Nellore Town in W.P. Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur 2 The Government of Andhra Endowments Department, District[Erstwhile at Hyderabad] 3. The Commissioner Endowments Department, Goiiapudi, Vijayawada. Krishna District. [Erstwhile at Hyderabad] Endowments Departments, Government 4. The Joint Secretary, Revenue of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat [Erstwhile at Hyderabad] 5. The Joint Commissioner, Estates Commissioner of Endowments, [Erstwhile at Hyderabad] Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Endowments Departments, Office of Goiiapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District. / 6. The Deputy Secretary, Law Department, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. [Erstwhile at Hyderabad] ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.4168 of 2013 dt.31.12.2024, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.6: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following: Bench Sr.No:-5 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010131192025 ns 0^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 274 of 2025 ...Appellant Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Vs. ...Respondents Venkati Veera Raghava Reddy and others ********** Sri C. Srinivasa Baba Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Advocate for Appellant Advocate for Respondents Sri CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 20th March 2025 PC : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.4168 of 2013. It appears that certain properties were gifted to Tirumala Tirupati 14.02.1979. Successors in interest of 2. Devasthanam (T.T.D.) as early as on the donor raised certain disputes. Suits were filed in various Courts within the jurisdiction of the Courts in Tamilnadu. Subsequently, got dismissed not on merits but in default. In the interregnum, it appears that there was some between the T.T.D. and the parties who were agitating the issues agreement before various Courts. This agreement had preceeded the dismissal of the suits in the Courts. 2 seeking enforcement of the According to the Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Endowments Act. 1987 (for short, “the Act'), since It appears that the private entities are entered into between them and the T.T.D. now 3. agreement provisions of Section 89(1) of the Andhra Religious Institutions and compromise can be entered into except with the previous sanction of the that the Government constituted a no Commissioner of Endowments, it appears Committee and in that regard, G.O.Ms.No.467, Revenue (Endowments.lil) dated 01.04.2009, was issued. Since the Committee was not ing its meetings, this ied the petitioner to fiie a petition in which the and directions were issued to respondent Department convening order impugned had been passed members of the Committee Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the writ petition, who were of G.O.Ms.No.467, dated 01.04.2009, to convene an constituted in terms appropriate meeting and constituted. consider the proposai for which the Committee was counsei for the appeiiant submits that the direction to convene not at all warranted inasmuch as there was which could have been resolved or gone into by the Learned a meeting is a direction which was no pending issues 4. Committee. be seen that no suit, which relates to a Charitable or On a reading of Section 89 of the Act, it can application or appeal pending before a Court Religious Institution or trustee or any other person in \ Endowment, except with the previous 5. Endowment, can be withdrawn or compromised by the in charge of the management of such Institution or sanction of the Commissioner. The Government had issued G.O. as early as on 01.04.2009 constituting the Committee while the suits were still pending before the Courts at Chennai. Despite the constitution of the Committee, it appears that no meeting was convened by the Committee. In the interregnum, it appears that all the suits that were filed against T.T.D. were dismissed for default. Applications for restoring the said suits were also dismissed and the litigation before the Courts, thus, appears to have attained finality. In the meantime, since there agreement executed between the parties and with a view to enforce that the petitioner Dharmasaia Society filed a petition seeking convening an appropriate meeting by the Committee to consider various aspects relating to By virtue of the direction impugned, the members of the Committee have been directed to convene a meeting and consider the proposal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that such a direction is unsustainable in law inasmuch as there is no suit, application or appeal pending before a Court pertaining to the property in question which could be either withdrawn or compromised by any of the parties. It is, thus, stated that the exercise of convening a meeting by the Committee and subsequent action the Commissioner of Endowments would be an exercise in futility. If at all there was any right vested in the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, appropriate independent proceedings would have to be initiated before the Court of law. was an the agreement. by 4 7. We are quite convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Section 89 of the Act would come into play only if there was a subsisting litigation which requires to be compromised for which alone the Commissioner in terms of 89 of the Act would be required to give his previous sanction. In the the Committee’s recommendations would be now an exercise in with the Commissioner which withdrawn or Section instant case, futility inasmuch as there would be no power could be exercised in regard to any matter which falls outside the purview of Section 89 of the Act. of the opinion that the judgment and order Be that as it may, we are impugned is unsustainable and the same is, accordingly, set aside. 8. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd /- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR (^^TOFRCER //TRUE COPY// SE To 1. One CC to Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to GP for Endowments, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 4. Two CC’s to GP for Law & Legislative Affairs, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb a HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No,274 of 2025 ^ 01 APR 2025 i ^ Current section ALLOWING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS