APHC010162002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI v\ 50l > THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 834 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in I. A. 8 of 2024 in O.A. 264 of 2021 the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakaakani. on Between: Bollini Subramanyam Naidu, S/o. Late B. Sanjeevi Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. 1-264, Ravillavarikandriga Village and Post Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. Sri Iruguleswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer Holding its Office at Ravillavari Kandriga Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. ...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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned common I ♦ / • • order dated 11.11.2024 passed in I. A.No.8 of 2024 in O.A.264 of 2021 on the /■ file^of AP endowments tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur District pending disposal of the writ petition. w : SRI A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents : SRI T.VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) The Court made the following ORDER : Counsel for the Petitioner APHC010162002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 834/2025 Between: 1.BOLLINI SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU,, S/0. LATE B. SANJEEVI NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION. R/0. 1-264, RAVILLAVARIKANDRIGA VILLAGE AND POST YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2.SRI IRUGULESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the order Dt. 11.11.2024 passed in I. A. 8/2024 in O. A. 264/2021 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakaakani, in Allowing the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the appellant begs to prefer this appeal for the following among other 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 be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the may impugned common order Dt. 11.11.2024 passed in 1. A. 8/2024 in O. A. 264/2021 on the file of AP endowments tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur District pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ACHANDRA1H NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 2. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 834 of 2025 ORDER:- Petition has been filed aggrieved by the IANo.8/2024 in of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal District. Consequently, prayed to set- The Civil Revision Order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Common O.A.No.264 of 2021 on the file at Pedakaakani, Guntur aside the impugned common order. counsel for the petitioner and the Heard the learned learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the Original Application. 2. 3. 4. initially, an Original Application in O.A.No.264 of 2021 has the respondents seeking the following reliefs: to vacate the O.A. been filed by Direction to the respondent/petitioner schedule property and hand over the possession of it to the 2 applicant, Sri.lrugaleswaraswamy Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor and occupation at the rate respondent delivers O.A. scheduie property to the applicants. (a) nd Temple, Ravillavari Kandriga District, and to pay damages for use of Rs.3.00 lakhs per annum till the 2 K Direction to the respondent to pay the cost to the applicants towards filing the application; (b) \ \ Pending OA, the applicants filed interlocutory application l.A.No.8 of 2024 against the respondent/petitioner, praying the trial court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical feature of the O.A. schedule property and restrain the respondent or his men not to change the physical features of the O.A. schedule property and not to dig road which leads to the temple for ingress and egress for devotees. Upon hearing both sides, learned trial court allowed the same and ordered Status 5. in quo on the land to avoid confusion during the process of survey, until the report of survey is received. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 6. Tribunal has erroneously allowed the Interlocutory Application in l.A.No.8 of 2024, appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features with the help of Mandal Surveyor by ordering Status quo to avoid confusion during the survey process. The Tribunal ought to have considered that the petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is unwarranted as the same has been filed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4, to create evidence for the purpose of filing the same in O.A.No.264/2021 3 he submits that the the contents of the Counter in proper perspective and erred in permissible under law. Further Tribunal has failed to appreciate Affidavit filed by the petitioner in allowing the impugned order. as is not / f show that the Tribunal of the case Commissioner with will clarify the extent and A perusal of the material goes to facts and circumstances 7. having considered the opined that the the assistance. appointment of an Advocate of Mandal Surveyor schedule property. The Tribunal also Advocate Commissioner will boundaries of the petition that the appointment of the opined be very useful for taking proper help the court to more precisely, and effectively. The exercise will between the parties Tribunal also recorded that decision and such an decide the real controversy made any specific objection is not possible to decide the the Tribunal did not the petitioners/respondents during hearing as it is for the survey title of the suit directed to maintain Status quo on survey is received to avoid schedule property. At that stage land until the report of the of confusion during the process survey. considered the reasons stated in the order of the Tribunai, this Court also is of the opinion that appointment of the commissioner to note down the physical features of the Having 8. Advocate 4 suit schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor to clarify the extent and boundaries of the property would not cause any prejudice to any party and it is helpful for better adjudication of the issue involved in the case, pending before the Tribunal. \ In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere 9. with the reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There 10. shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SOI- B.PRASADARAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // ^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakaakani, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri A.Chandraih Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T.Venu Gopal, Advocate, SC For Endowments (Rayalaseema Region), [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAC VD HIGH COURT \ DATED: 14/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 834 OF 2025 -"A o o CJV - 15 SEP 2025 m| 9,^ Current Section Tj..-at' DISMISSING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION