y V APHC010301962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH u AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) v- S THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS. 15005 & 15006 OF 2025 I V' V-' WRIT PETITION NO: 15005 OF 202^ Between: Pinneboyina Satyanarayana, S/o Subbaiah, Village and post. Markapuram Mandal.Prakasam District. R/o 1-121, Rayavarm ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Prakasam District 4. Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamy vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. Ongole, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the respondent in issuing the orders passed in Rc. No. - Nil/2025, dated 09-06- in the 4th 1 ^^^2025 as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said orders vide Rc. No.-Nii/2025, dated 09-06-2025. 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^he orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No. -Nil/2025, dated:09- 06-2025. V lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swan^ vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioners/Respondent .4 AND Pinneboyina Satyanarayana, S/o^'Subbaiah, Village and post, Markapuram Mandal,Prakasam District. R/o 1-121, Rayavarm ...Respondents/Petitioner 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal ^cretary. Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Prakasam District Ongole, ...Respondents/Respondents 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 vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025 and dismiss the above writ. f S'. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K CHINNA VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE, SC For Endowments WRIT PETITION NO: 15006 OF 2025 Between: Velpula Venkata Reddy, S/o Konda reddy, Aged about 72 years ,Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR District. Ongole 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department Prakasam District. 4. Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamy vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal,Prakasam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing orders vide Rc. No.Nil dated .09-06-2025 during pendency of O.A No.24 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Andhra Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary Pradesh State Endowments and without any f ^jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said order vide Rc. No. Lands-Nil dated.09-06-2025. 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 orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No.-Nil dated:^-06- 2025 pending the Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava SwanTy vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal,Prakasam District. ...Petitioners/Respondent.4 AND Velpula Venkata Reddy,'^^/o Konda reddy. Aged about 72 years ,Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Petitioner 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR District. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Prakasam District. 2. 3. Ongole, 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025 and dismiss the above writ. V Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K CHINNA VENKAT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS^ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: DEVI SUBHASHINrANNE Endowments The Court made the following Common order: REDDY SC For 1 APHC010301962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0;*0 [3458] 0K? THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15005/2025 Between; 1.PINNEBOYINA SATYANARAYANA, S/0 SUBBAIAH, RAYAVARM VILLAGE AND POST, MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/0 1-121, MARKAPURAM ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATl. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4.SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA SWAMY VARIDEVASTANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1.THE 3.THE ...RESPONDENT(S): under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Petition . circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 4th 2 respondent in issuing the orders passed in Rc. No. - Nil/2025, dated 09-06- 2025 as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said orders vide Rc. No.-Nii/2025, dated 09-06-2025 and pass 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 pleased to suspend the orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No. -Nil/2025, dated:09-06-2025 and pass lA NO; 2 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 Pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025 and dismiss the above writ and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KCHINNAVENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 1. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 2. APHC010296322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15006/2025 Between: 3 1. VELPULA VENKATA REDDY, S/0 KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS ,MARKAPURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA SWAMY VARI DEVASTANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER MAN DAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. MARKAPUR TOWN AND ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing orders vide Rc. No.Nil dated .09-06-2025 2025 during pendency of O.A No.24 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh State Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said order vide Rc. No. Lands-Nil dated.09-06-2025 and pass 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 pleased to suspend the orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No.-Nil dated:09-06-2025 pending the Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass lA NO: 2 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 4 May be pleased to vacate the interim orders the above writ and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K CHINNA VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER - Heard Sri K. Chinna Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Sri V. Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel respondents. dated 01-07-2025 and dismiss appearing for the 2. Since the issue involved in both cases is one and the same, it appropriate to dispose of the cases by way of a ‘Common Order’. IS 3. The Writ Petitions are filed challenging orders of the 4*^ respondent passed under Sec.83 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act (30 of 1987’) vide RC.No.Nil/2025 dated 09.06.2025 4. It is contended that the 4*^ respondent issued a notice stating that the 4*'’ respondent temple is the absolute owner of the subject property however, the petitioner(s) in occupation of the subject property, therefore, the petitioner(s) were asked to show cause/explain as to why he were ■p'-.i’’ 5 should not be treated as an encroacher within the meaning of the provisions of Sec.83 (2) of the Act (30 of 1987) and be evicted accordingly. 5. It is contended by the temple authorities that the 4*^ respondent is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac 3.80 cents of land in Sy. No.635 of Markapuram town, which is inam land meant for Thulasi Pushpamala Nowkri Service’. The register maintained under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) and Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) also shows that the said extent of Ac-3.80 cents is the property of the temple. It is stated by the respondents in the said notice that in view of the amendments made to the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, in 2013 stating that in case of any service inams, the temple alone is entitled for ryotwari patta and if, any pattas were granted in favour of those persons who th had rendered service to the temple, are null and void. Observing thus, the 4 respondent passed the impugned proceedings requiring the petitioner(s) to vacate from the subject land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, they approached this Court. This Court vide order dated 01.07.2025, directed the respondents 6. not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner(s) pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2025. 6 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s), referring to provisions of Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987), contends that any sale, gift, or exchange, mortgage, or lease of an Inam land granted for the support and maintenance or Religious Institution, for performance of a service shall be null and void. Unless the effected with prior sanction of the government, and he further contends that i view of the provision of Sec.77 of the Act (30 of 1987), it is the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who can conduct an enquiry and pass orders for eviction in the cases of inam lands, in which the institution or the endowment has an interest. of the Charitable Institution religious or public charity or same is in 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) thus argues that the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the petitioner(s) has also filed an O.A. before the A.P. State Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur, in O.A. No. 24 of 2025, and the same is still pending. When the said O.A. is pending, the respondents have passed the impugned proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Takkella Lakshminarasaiah Pradesh and others\ wherein it is observed that; Vs. State of Andhra “47. Section 4(4) was repealed earlier and substituted by another clause shown in Italics. According to now, '2020{3)ALD29(AP){DB) 7 f sub-section (4) of Section 4, substituted by Act No. 16 of 2013 is given effect from 26.11.1956 i.e., giving retrospective effect from the date of commencement of original enactment, where an inam land is with a burden to render service, or for performance of a religious or public charity, or as a remuneration for performance of certain customary service, to an institution or endowment, no person shall be entitled to Ryotwari Patta, and the institution or Endowment alone shall be entitled to Ryotwari Patta for such Inam land without any restriction of extent and without the condition of personal cultivation. ” And a judgment in W.P.No.28866 of 2024 and 28869 of 2024. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner(s) are in unauthorized and unlawful occupation of the temple 10. property. The petitioner(s) was never a servicedar, he has encroached on the property without the authority of law. Therefore, notice was issued under Section 83 (2) of the Act (30 of 1987). 11. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Venugopal Rao, appearing for th Smt. Devi Subhashini Anne, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 respondent, referring to the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act (30 of 1987), submits that the inaam was granted for a specific service, namely, thulasi pushpamala seva. In terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, in such a case, the temple alone is entitled to the issuance of a ryotwari patta; the service holder is not entitled to a ryotwari patta. 8 12. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner(s) has an effective alternate remedy before the Tribunal without availing the said remedy under Sec.87 of the Act. The petitioner(s) has approached this Court, which is unsustainable. It is further argued that when inaam was granted for a specific purpose of rendering some service to the temple, the said property would not gain the characteristics of an absolute property of the inaamdhaars/service holders. 13. Considered the submissions. For adjudication of the issues raised in the case, it is relevant to 14. extract the provisions of Sec.75 and 77 of the Act (30 of 1987). ‘Sec.75. Lease, sale ofinams to be void in certain cases - (1) Any lease 1[XXXX] and any gift, sale exchange or mortgage of an inam land granted for the support or maintenance of charitable or religious institution or endowment or for the performance of a religious or public charity or service, shall be null and void unless any such transaction not being a gift, is effected with the prior sanction of the Government. (2) Such prior sanction may be accorded by the Government where they consider that the transaction is- (i) necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment; (II) in regard to the land which is an uneconomical holding for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and (Hi) the consideration thereof is adequate and proper. (3)The provisions in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 80 shall apply for the sale of any inam land. 9 f Sec 77. Resumption of Inam lands - either sue motu or on the (1) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, application of the trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment or of the Commissioner or of any person having interest in the institution or endowment authorised by the Commissioner, by order, resume the whole or any portion of any such inam land referred to in Section 75 on all or any of the following grounds namely [i}that the holder of the inam has effected a transaction which is null and void under Section 75; (ijlthat the charitable or religious institution or endowment has ceased to exist or the charity or service has become impossible of performance; (iiilthat the holder of such inam land has failed to perform or make the necessary arrangements for performing, in accordance with the custom of the institution or endowment, the charity or service for the or usage performance of which the inam land was granted. {2)(a)Before passing an order under sub-section (1), the Revenue Divisional Officer shall give notice to the trustee, to the Commissioner, to the holder of the inam land, to the person In possession of the Inam land where he is not the holder thereof and to the alienee, if any, of the land and also publish a copy of the notice in such manner as may be prescribed, which publication shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to every other person likely to be affected by such order; and consider the objections, if any, after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed. [^Where only a portion of the inam land is affected, notice shall be given under clause (a) to the holder of such portion as well as to the holder or holders of the other portion or portions to the person In possession of every such portion, where he is not the holder thereof and to the alienee, if any, of every such portion and the objections of all such persons shall be considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. (3) A copy of every order passed under sub-section (1), shall be communicated to each of the persons mentioned in sub-section (2)and shall be published In the manner prescribed. mam 10 [^Where any inam land or portion thereof is resumed under this section, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, by order, grant a ryotwari patta in respect of the inam land or portion thereof to the charitable or religious institution concerned; and where the resumption is made on the ground specified in item (ii) of Sub-section (1) to any such charitable or religious institution as the Commissioner may recommend. MThe order, granting the ryotwari patta under clause (a) shall, application made to the Revenue Divisional Officer within the time prescribed be executed by him in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf on (^Pending the resumption of an inam land or portion thereof under this section on the ground specified in item (Hi) of sub- section (1), the Revenue Divisional Officer may direct the person in possession of the inam land or portion thereo,f to pay to the trustee, the incurred or likely to be incurred for the performance of the charity service to the institution or endowment. In default of such payment, the Revenue Divisional Officer expenses or may pass an order or make such arrangement as he considers necessary for the performance of the charity or service; and the expenses incurred therefor shall be recovered from the person in possession of the inam land or portion thereof, as if they were arrears of land revenue.” 15. In the light of the above provisions of the Act (30 of 1987), the Revenue Divisional Officer, may either suo moto or on application filed by the trustee of the endowments or charitable institution or on the application of the Commissioner by order resume the whole or any portion of any such Inam land referred to in Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987) in the cases of lands referred to in Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987). After such resumption, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, by order, grant ryotwari patta in respect of the Inam land or portion thereof to the Charitable or Religious institution concerned. 11 r 16. Having regard to the above, even according to the respondents, the subject lands are Inam lands, therefore the same would fall under Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987). Hence, in terms of Section 77 of the Act (30 of 1987), it is the RDO who must initiate proceedings to resume the lands, not the Executive Officer acting under the provisions of Section 83 of the Act (30 of 1987). The provisions of Section 83 of the Act (30 of 1987) would not apply to the instant case. According to the 4'^ respondent, the subject lands are Inam lands. Without expressing any views on the merits of the issue as to the entitlement to ryotwari patta, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Sec.83 of the Act (30 of 1987), will not apply in the facts of the present case. In the light of the provisions of Sec.77 of the Act (30 of 1987), the 4"" respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Sec.83 of the Act (30 of 1987). Accordingly, the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petitions are set aside. However, this order will not preclude the 4‘^ respondent temple from availing the remedies available to it under the law. 17. 18. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. jy PRAEHAKAR RAO assistant registrar // //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR District. AP Secretariat, Ongole, Endowment Department, Swamy vari Devastanam Commissioner, 3. The Assistant prakasam District. 4. Sri Executiv^fficeh Town and Lakshmi Chennakesava Mandal.Ptakasam District. CCto Sri.KChinnaVenkatReddv^Ad'/ocate For Endowments, Hign ^ Markapur 5. One 6. Two [OUT] 7. One [OPUCl Two CD Copies. CCS to OP Endowments Advocate i subhashini Anne, SC^r CC to M/S Devi 8. AL HIGH COURT DATED :21/08/2025 COMMON ORDER WP NO. 15005 & 15006 OF 2025 ANO/y^- 2025 m, Col -N ■' > Current becuon , ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS