APHC010193372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JSUTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL Nos: 685. 616. 660. 661. 665. 686. 687. 688 AND 693 OF 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 685 OF 202 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No.37848 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: 1. Sri Sai Srinivasa Residential Welfare Association, A Society Registered under the A.P Societies Registration Act 2001 vide Reg No.1122 of 2006 at Visakhpatnam, Rep by its President Md.Murad AN Khan, S/o. Md Jamal Khan aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 45-58-15/8 Narasimhanagar Visakhapatnam. Md.Murad Ali Khan, S/o. Md. Jamal Khan aged, about 61 years, Occ: 2. Business, R/o. 45-58-15/8, Narasimhanagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at Velagapudi, Amaravati). Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District. 2. 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.N0:275/D1 of an extent of 733 Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 common order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. No.37848 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS APHC010193552025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 616 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No. 37872 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. ^ •W ■ 3 - Between: Thalam Tatha Reddy, S/o. K. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ; Business, R/o. H.No.45-2-63/9, M.T Palem, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at Velagapudi, Amaravati). 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful ' .y ' possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.275/D1 of an extent of 222.22 Sq. Yards at. Adavivaram Viilage, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. No.37872 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS APHC010193642025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 660 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt. 27.09.2024 in WP No. 37957 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: Nallimilli Bapi Reddy, S/o. N.Venkata Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.45-2-63/9, M T Palem, Akkayapalenn Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at Velagapudi, Amaravati). 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri. Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District.' ' ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 sed to direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.275/DI of an extent of 200 Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, _ 5 - Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. No. 37957 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS APHC010193492025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 661 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No.37858 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: Nallimilli Venkata Reddy, S/o. N.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: .Business, R/o. H.No.45-2-63/9, M.T Palem, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep by its Executive Officer; Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri Varaha taxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 to not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.275/D1 of an extent of 200 Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and present appeal. final disposal of the IA N0:4 0F 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 order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. No.37858 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI KOPPERA KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS APHC010193622025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 665 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No. 37956 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: Md Rashid Ali Khan, S/o. Late Haji Tayoob Mohammed, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.45-58-15/8, Narasimhanagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Appeliant/Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Velagapudi, Amaravati). 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District. ’ 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri. Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. (Presently at ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No,275/D1 of an extent of 267 Sig^ Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. No. 37956 of 2014 by the learned single judge of This Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS. APHC010193422025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 686 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No. 37856 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: Nallimilli Satti Reddy, S/o. N.Venkat Reddy, > Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.45-2-63/9, M.T Palem, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at (Endts.lV) Velagapudi, Amaravati). 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District. “ 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri. Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 pot to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.275/D1 of an extent of 200, Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. No.37856 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble 6ourt pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s^CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.l :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS APHC010193512025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 687 OF 2025r Writ Appeal under clause 16 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No. 37869 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: Konala Venkata Reddy, S/. H^mmi Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.45-2-63/9,M.T Palem Akkayyapplam Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, ^Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at Velagapudi, Amaravati). 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District. IB- 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 auid 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri. Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.2^5yD1 of extent of 222.22 Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dikrict, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. an lA NO: 4 OF 20^5 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 common order dat6d. 27.09.2024 passed in WP. I)l0r37869 of 2014 by the learned single judge of thiC^ Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS APHC010193432025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dt.27.09.2024 in WP No.37890 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. \\ Between: Md.Rashid Ali Khan, S/o. Late Haji Mohammed, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H.No.45-58-15/8, Narasimhanagar, V^hapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at Velagapudi, Amaravati). 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District.' 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri. Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 poHO interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.2757D1 of an extent of 300 Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the Hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 order dated. 27.09^24 passed in WP. Ne; 37890 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR A^OCIATES 12^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPAI^FSRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDO^ENTS APHC010193592025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 693 OF 2025^-^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dt.27.09.2024 ir).WP No.37955 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of A.P. Between: Sarada Lakshmana Murthy, S/o. Late Nagamurthy, Aged about 68 Years, Occ: Ex Service, R/o. H.No.45-2-63/9, Jagannadhapuram, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endts.lV) Department Velagapudi, Amaravati). * 2. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Visakhapatnam District: 3. The Regularizing Committee, Constituted as per G.Os 578 and 253 Rep by Its Members, Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam. Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. Secretariat, Hyderabad (Presently at ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2025 f Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of.4he petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.275/D1 of an extent of 222.22 Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of th^petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated. 27.09/2024 passed in WP. No. 37955 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS, SC FOR ENDOWMEfiJTS The Court made the following Common Judgment: APHC010193372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO- 685/2025 along with / Writ Appeal Nos.61§. 660. 661, 665. 686, 687, 688 & 693 of 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the final common order dt.27.09.2024 passed in WP No.37848 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Honourable Court. WRIT APPEAL No.685/2025 Between: 1.SRI SAI SRINIVASA RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION. A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE A.P SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 2001 VIDE REG N0.1122 OF 2006 AT VISAKHPATNAM, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT MD.MURAD AN KHAN S/0 MD JAMAL KHAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. OCC BUSINESS, R/0 45-58-15/8 NARASIMHANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM. 2.MD.MURAD ALI KHAN, , S/0 MD. JAMAL KHAN AGED, ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS. R/0 45-58-15/8, NARASIMHANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD (ENDTS.LV) (PRESENTLY AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI). 2. SRI VARAHA LAXMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3.THE REGULARIZING COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED AS PER G.OS 578 AND 253 REP BY ITS MEMBERS, SRI. VARAHA LAXMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): O^CJ^<R£J .WA.9fo.685 of2025 eZ SatcR 2 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 condone the delay of 117 days in filing the Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 0F 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the cohnmon order dated 27.09.2024 in WP No.37848 of 2014. lA NO: 3 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 o direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Sy.No.275/D1 of an extent of 738 Sq. Yards at Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhii Mandal, ' Visakhapatnam District, A.P pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal. lA NO: 4 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 common order dated. 27.09.2024 passed in WP.No.37848 of 2014 by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 29.07.2025 fP'.Ji.?io.6SS of2025 dl Satch 3 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the common orders dated 27.09.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.37848 of 2014 & batch, the writ petitioners therein preferred these batch of Writ Appeals. 2. Inasmuch as these writ appeals arise out of a common order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to with their status in the writ petitions. 4. The Writ Petitions were filed seeking to declare the letter dated 01.02.2008 issued by respondent no.2-Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, as illegal being violative of G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endts-IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.253, Revenue (Endts.IV(2) Department, dated 03.03.2005. 5. Through the impugned orders, the writ petitions were dismissed holding that since the land in question does not belong to the State Government or to any instrumentality of the State and prima facie, it belongs .WAMo.685 of2025 oZ SatcH 4 to the 2"^ respondent-Devasthanam, there cannot be any regularization of the petitioners' occupation of the said land. 6. The contents of the writ petitions, in brief, are as follows: The petitioners purchased different extents of site in Survey No.275/Dl of Adavivaram village, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District through registered sale deeds from Achuyutha Ramanayya Patrudu, who was granted patta vide Patta No.214 by Raja Saheb of Vizianagaram and ever since they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. While so, they were informed that patta to the subject lands was granted to respondent no.2-Devastanam and that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000 expressing its intention to regularize the occupations/encroachm ents in respect of the lands of respondent no.2-Temple. That thereafter the Government issued another order vide G.O.Ms.No.253, Revenue (Endts.IV(2)) Department, dated 03.03.2005 extending the time till 30.04.2004 for applying for regularization. That as the respondent no.2 did not allow the petitioners and others to lay fencing over the lands, they along with the association filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2337 of 2007 to consider their respective applications and the said writ petition was disposed of, directing the Executive TfCJ ^ (RCJ W.A-^o.68S of2025 €L Batch 5 Officer of the temple to dispose of the applications of petitioner nos.5 to 21 therein, if they were pending, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.253, dated 03.03.2005, if a committee as contemplated therein had already constituted. That thereafter respondent no.2 communicated letter dated 01.02.2008 stating that the suit filed by vendor of petitioner vide O.S.No.664 of 1994 was dismissed and since the patta No.214 projected by petitioner's vendor is a forged one, he has no right to sell the land and hence the applications of the petitioners were rejected. That the temple which has regularized the occupations of certain purchasers from the same vendor. same layout and same survey number, surprisingly stating that there was no layout at all. rejected the applications of the petitioners and hence the petitioners were discriminated. Hence, the writ petition. 7. The respondent no.2 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the writ affidavit inter alia contending that Devasthanam is absolute owner of the subject lands and the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners are null, void and unenforceable and the petitioners cannot claim any right or title basing on those documents. That vendor of the petitioners filed suit vide O.S.No.664/1994 claiming the subject land under patta No.214 and the said suit was dismissed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, 685 of2025 €L SatcH 6 Visakhapatnam vide orders dated 07.07.1997 and the said order has become final. The petitioners failed to prove their possession in any court of law and they cannot have any claim under Inam Abolition Act, since the patta of petitioners' vendor was not issued by Estate Collector. That after expiry of period stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.578, some of the petitioners made applications and petitioner no. 1-President of Sri Sai Srinivas Residential Welfare Association and its members filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2337 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the same directing to dispose of the applications of petitioner nos.5 to 21 therein, if they were still pending in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.253, dated 03.03.2025. Accordingly, the said applications were examined and were rejected. That the petitioners, after lapse of more than six (06) years of rejection of their applications, filed the writ petitions. That the petitioners cannot ask for regularization of the land owned by Devasthanam in their favour as a matter of right basing on void documents and they cannot also seek regularization on the ground that some other individuals got regularization. That Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.09.2010 passed in W.A.No.536 of 2010 dismissed the writ appeal holding that since the lands do not belong to the State or any State instrumentality, all the State authorities are required to act in the interest of concerned Endowment in the M./JiMo.GSS of2025 el Batch 1 matters pertaining to the property of Devasthanam. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Upon considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions vide common order. 9. Assailing the said common order, these writ appeals came to be filed. 10. Heard Sri S. .VS.S.Siva Ram on behalf of M/s. CKR associates for Appellants, Sri Chintapaiii Srinivas, learned Standing counsel for respondent no.2-Temple. 11. Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for appellants, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavits, grounds of appeals and contentions raised before the learned single Judge, would contend that the petitioners submitted applications for regularisation before expiry of the stipulated date i.e. 30.04.2004, hence the observations made by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.536 of 2010 do not apply, since said observations were made while dealing with the case where the applications were made after expiry of stipulated date. He would further contend that supersession of G.O.Ms.No.578 by G.O.Ms.No.253 does not take away the effect of the said .WJlMo. 685 of2025 ^ BatcH 8 G.O. regarding regularization. He would further contend that G.O.Ms.No.578 is meant for regularization of occupation of the lands and as such the petitioners, who are occupants of the lands, are entitled for regularization and lack of title and dismissal of civil suit filed by vendor of appellants has nothing to do with regularization by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.578. He would further contend that the learned single Judge upon misinterpretation of the observations of the Division Bench in W.A.No.536 of 2010, dismissed the writ petitions and therefore, the order passed by the. learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Appeals. 12. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the patta claimed by vendor of the appellants was proved to be a fake and forged document by the civil Court and therefore, the documents of title claimed by the appellants are void and they do not confer any title to the appellants. He would further contend that the appellants failed to prove their occupation over the subject property and therefore they are not entitled to seek regularization by virtue of G.O.Ms.Nos.578 & 253. He would further contend that the authorities having found that the appellants were never in possession of the subject property had rightly rejected their claims being not genuine and hence cannot be considered for settlement under Section 89 of the Act 30 of ^CJ ^ .WJl.9fo.68S of2025 dt Sated 9 1987. He would further contend that the learned single Judge upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective had rightly dismissed the writ petitions and the same does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Appeals. 13. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. The appellants along with others filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2337 of 2007 and a learned single Judge of the High Court of unified State disposed of the said writ petition vide orders dated 26.02.2007. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: " The applications made by petitioners 5 to 21, if they are still pending, shall be disposed of by the Executive ofifcer of second respondent-tempie in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.253 dated 03.03.2005, if a committee as contemplated therein is already constituted. 15. In pursuance thereof, the applications of the appellants, who are among petitioners 5 to 21 in W.P.No.2337 of 2007, were rejected vide orders impugned in the writ petitions, inter alia on the ground that there is no layout as claimed by the appellants and the entire land in Survey No.275 is in possession and protection of Devasthanam. TfCJd^^RCJ .WA.^o.68S of2025 €L Batch 10 16. Perusal of the orders passed in W.A.No.536 of 2010 would go to show that the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the case where regularization applications were not made with the stipulated date. 17. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants is right in contending that G.O.Ms.No.578 is applicable even to the persons who are in occupation either authorized/unauthorized/encroacher and therefore, the question of proving title of the vendors does not arise. 18. It is the specific contention of the temple as could be perceived from the rejection orders and also the contents of the counter affidavit, that the appellants were never in possession of the subject land and the same has been in possession and protection of the Devasthanam. Except making a bald statement regarding possession, the appellants did not choose to file any evidence to substantiate their contention regarding possession of the property. 19. In view of the above, the authorities had rightly rejected the regularization applications made by them, since the appellants failed to meet the prime criterion of being in possession of the property as per G.O.Ms.No.578. The Writ Appeals lack merit and they deserve dismissal. 685 of2025 ^ batch ' 11 20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-V.D1WAKAR deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, SC for Endowments [OPUC] ■ 3. One CC to Sri K. Koteswara Rao, SCTor Endowments [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] V 5. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA Nos. 685, 616, 660, 661,665, 686, 687, 688 AND 693 OF 2025 0" 11! SEP 2825 ^ . Current Section ^^ DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS