IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7427 OF 2019 Between: R/o^D^ Agriculture. K/o. D. No.5-148/1, Mutyalareddypalli village. Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Govt, of AP Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Department of Endowments, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. ^ ChfttoorDistric?°^^'^^'°^^'^’ Departments, Chittoor 3. Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt. Rep. by its Mahant Sri H.H. > Office at No. 122, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.Arjundossji ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus more declaring the inaction of petitioner representation dated the 3rd respondent not to consider the 2016, 2017 and 2018 for enjoyment and possession of the land an extent of Ac.1-58 cents in Sy.No.244 in Muthyareddpalli village, Tirupathi, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principal of justice and offends and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in his possession and enjoyment of the said land and to grant such other Court deems fit and proper in circumstances of the case. Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition., the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess from the subject lands an extent of Ac1-58 cents in Sy.No.244 in Muthyareddpalli Village, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. VENKATA RAVI SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI T.V.S. KUMAR, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010171972019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0S0 [3310] 0 FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7427/2019 Between; ...PETITIONER E. Madhusudhan, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Govt Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2.T VS KUMAR The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; “ to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction :z:: particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the f‘^respondent not to consider the petitioner representation dated 2016, 2017 and 2018 for enjoyment and possession of the land an extent of Ac1-.58 Muthyareddpalli more Sy.No.244 in cents village,Tirupathi,Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principal ofJustice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in his possession and enjoyment of the said land....” m 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the one N.Kannaiah was the SaswathaPattadhar and paying “IZARA” and continued in possession and enjoyment of Ac.8.58 cents in Survey No.244. The petitioner’s father in law purchased the land from kannaiah in the year 1985 for sale consideration of Rs.28,000/-. Since then, he is continuing in possession. The said land is agricultural land and the respondent-Mutt granted lease to N.Kannaiah after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. The petitioner’s father in law is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 1.58 cents in Survey No.244 (for short “subject land”) out of that extent he has been raising different crops in the above said land for last 34 years. While things stood thus, the sons of Kannaiah namely N.'Venkatadri and N.Jaganadham raised objection and demanded the petitioner to vacate the land, but the respondent authorities and farmers of Mutyalareddypalliryots did not raise any objections for the possession and enjoyment of the said land. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3'’^ respondent to continue the right of possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. But the respondent authorities have not taken any action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2019, the respondents have not filed any counter till date. Hence, this Court, vide order, dated 02.12.2024, forfeited the right of filing of the counter of the respondents. 3. 3 a 4. Heard Mr.P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contests urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner is cultivating the agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 1.58 cents for his family needs. He further submits that, the petitioner made a representation to the 3'^'^ respondent about his willingness to continue him in the said land for agricultural purpose. He further submits that, in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.1438 of 2006 stated that "the language of Section 82 (2) of the Act read with Rules 5 & 6 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11.03.2003 makes it clear that once the cultivating tenant is declared as the landless poor persons and if he is in continuous possession of the said land for not less than six years, such person shall have right to purchase the land for a consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value.” Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others^ regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for Issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 4 Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). ” % \ The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 7. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, it appears that, the respondents have not considered the representations made by the petitioner till date. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the 3'^'^ respondent within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of I. receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt of representation, the 3'"'^ respondent is directed II. to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of representation. 5 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTYREGISTRAR s //TRUE COPY// /^EC ■1 N OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Endowments, Govt, of AP, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Departments, Chittoor, Chittoor District. The Mahant Sri H.H. Arjundossji, Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Office at No. 122, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. One CC to Sri P. V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri T.V.S. Kumar, SC for Endowments (OPUC) Three C.D. Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Cnr ‘4^ % HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 w X 15 FEB 2025 ^ Curreni 5ecuon ry ORDER WP.No.7427 of 2019 DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS