Kanni Sri Krishna Satya Venkata Ramana S/o. Kanakam, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its
WP/13921/2015 · 2025-01-08
K Manmadha Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27766 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27766 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010394782015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13921/2015 Between: Kanni Sri Krishna Satya Venkata Ramana S/o. Kanakam, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“..to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners in respect of the extents situated in Sy.No.181/1, 183/2, 186/4 187/1 and
2
187/2 at Marripaka Village of Jaggampeta Mandal and Burugupudi Village of Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District (though the petitioners are in possession for the last more than 50 to 60 years) is illegal arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and also against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law by taking into
consideration of their pattadar passbooks/long possession and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case...”
2. Heard Mr K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.
3. As observed from the proceedings sheet, this Court on 14.05.2015 has passed the following interim order:-
“Notice before admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.
Post on 10.06.2015.
In the meanwhile, status-quo as on today to be maintained by the parties with regard to the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land situated in Sy.Nos.181/1, 183/2, 186/4, 187/1 and 187/2 at Marripaka Village of Jaggampeta Mandal, Burugupudi Village of Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District’’.
3
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the interim orders of this Court, dated 14.05.2015, the petitioners are in possession of the subject property till date and requests to pass appropriate orders.
5. Counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.4. Basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that subject property stands in the name of the 8th respondent-temple and the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the same. He further submits that the 8th respondent-temple is proposing to issue Rule-5, Form-1 notice to all the petitioners and others who are squatting on the subject property and they will evict them from the lands by following Section 84 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, as the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, in view of the interim orders of this Court, dated 14.05.2015, if the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property they are directed to follow due process of law. Till then, the respondents are directed not to dispossess and evict the petitioners from the subject property.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
4
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 08.01.2025 TM