, A 4 APHC010393442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 20371 OF 2Q2fi Between: Y Mohan, s/o Y.Nadamuni aged about 74 Room No.6, Old bus stand Kadapa town years, flower Business, r/at D.No. 15/403, devanga street. area ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh rept by its Principal Secretary secretariat buildings. Department of Revenue (Endowments) Velagapudi village, Guntur district 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Dept of Endowments village Vijayawada city, NTR District 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kadapa 4. Yadalla Pitchaiah Charities Association and secretary Office situate at D.No. 19/790 5. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa Gollapudi Kadapa Rept by its Trustee GM street Kadapa town. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to Therefore, the petitioner may be prays that this honourable court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a proceeding or a writ one in the nature ^of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent impugned notification in a pamphlet dt. Nil the E-Tender sealed public auction notification inviting the public to take no.4 in issuing tender-cum- part in the auction of the vacant land belonging to the Respondent no 4 in Sy.no.5 of Nagarujupalle village (next to old bus stand) Kadapa town no.1 Plot A extent Ac 0-37. 09 cents/1795 comprising of two plots that is plot square yards and plot no. 2, Plot B extent Ac 0-38.22 cents or 1850 sq yards vacant land for 11 the auction took place years, for which on 17-7-2025, at 10-00 AM and the Respondent no.2/The Commissioner Endowments Department Vijayawada issuing the impugned lease approval order vide D.Dis No. M3/COE-19024(37)10/2024 31-7-2025 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the Endowments Act, the constitution of India, Dt. provisions of the and in violation of the judgment and decree passed in OS NO. 473/2014 dt 4-5-2022 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Kadapa also in violation of the principles of process of law tlie said tender natural justice and without following the due notification and lease approval orders are issued by R4 and R2 consequently the petitioner prays that this honourable court may be pleased to kindly set aside the said impugned tender notification of R4 and also the impugned lease approval orders dt 31-7-2025 of R2 further orders in the interest of justice. Prayer i Order dt.30.08.2025 in I.A.No.03 of 2025. and and pass such other or IS amended as per the Court's lA NO: 1 OF 709*; Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents not to finalize or hand over the possession of the stall to no. 6 of which the petitioners herein sy.no.5 of Nagarujupalle comprising of two plots that i is holding the flower shop Situate in village(next to old bus stand) Kadapa town IS plot no. 1 Plot A extent Ac.0-37.09 cents/1795, square yards and plot no.2. Plot B extent Ac.O 38.22 cents or 1850 sq. yards '*»to anyone or anybody and not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 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 to permit the petitioner to file the below mentioned additional material which follows: papers are as a) copy of the impugned lease approval orders issued by Respondent n. 2 vide D.Dis No.M3/COE-19024(37)/10/2024. Dt. 31- 7- 2025 b) proceedings of Deputy commissioner of endowments Kurnool Reno.B2/9009/2013/Adm./dated: -12-2014 vide c) letter of Regional Joint Commissioner endowments dept., Tirupati addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Endowments Kurnool dt. 30-12-2016 d) Copy of the complaint given by BC obul reddy to the lAddl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kadapa dt. 23-1-2017 e) copy of the sworn affidavit of BC obul reddy in the above complaint dt. 25-4-2017 f) copy of the affidavit filed by BC Obul reddy in WP No. 3258/2021 along with the allotment orders dt. 8-11-2013 and 21-11-2013 g) copy of the order in WP No. 26018/22 dt.22-08-2022. 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 eased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer portion of the writ petition as follows; Proposed amendment of the main writ prayer: “Therefore, the petitioner prays that this honourable court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a proceeding or a writ one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent no.4 in issuing impugned notification in a pamphlet dt. Nil the E-Tender sealed tender- -public auction notification inviting the public to take part in the auction of the vacant land belonging to the Respondent no.4 in sy.no.5 of Nagarujupalle village(next to old bus stand) Kadapa town comprising of cum two plots that is plot no. 1 Plot A extent Ac.0-37.09 cents/1795, yards and plot no.2, Plot B extent Ac.0-38.22 cents or • 1850 sq. yards vacant land for 11 years, for which the auction took place on 17-7-2025, at 10-00 AM and the Respondent no.2/The Commissioner Endowments Department Vijayawada issuing the impugned lease approval order vide D.Dis No.M3/COE-19024(37)710/2024. Dt. 31-7-2025 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the constitution of India, and in violation of the judgment and decree passed in OS NO. 473/2014 dt. 4-5-2022 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Kadapa, also in violation of the principles of natural justice and without following the due process of law the said tender notification and lease approval orders are issued by R.4 & R2 and consequently the petitioner prays that this honourable court may be pleased to kindly set aside the said impugned tender notification of R4 and also the impugned lease approval orders dt. 31-7-2025 of R2. Endowments Act, the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI VV N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ^PHC010393442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3458] 0 ^•jil SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 20371 OF 2025 Between: 1 Y MOHAN S/O Y.NADAMUNI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, FLOWER R/AT D.NO. BUSINESS, ROOM N0.6, OLD BUS STAND AREA, 15/403, DEVANGA STREET, KADAPATOWN ...PETITIONER AND REPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 1.THE STATE OF AP, at DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, DEPT OF ENDOWMENTS GOLLAPUDI VILLAGE VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, KADAPA 4.YADALLA PITCHAIAH CHARITIES ASSOCIATION, KADAPA REPT BY ITS TRUSTEE AND SECRETARY OFFICE SITUATE AT D.NO. 19/790, GM STREET KADAPATOWN. 5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.V V N NARASIMHAM 3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 20371 OF 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri S.S.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Challenging the proceedings issued by the respondent No.4, calling for e-tenders and sealed tenders for the auction of leasehold rights in respect of the subject land in Sy.No.5 of Nagarujupalle Village (next to the old bus stand), Kadapa Town, comprising of two plots - Plot No.1 (Plot A) over an extent of Ac.0-37.09 cents or 1795 square yards, and Plot No.2 (Plot B) over an extent of Ac.0-38.22 cents or 1850 square yards - for a period of 11 years. 2. the present writ petition is filed. It is contended that the petitioner, who is a flower merchant, has been in 3. possession of the shop No.6 for the past 12 years as a tenant. It is stated that the petitioner has been paying lease rentals to respondent No.4. Initially, lease was granted by respondent No.4 in the year 2013. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner raised a tin shed and started operating his business. He has been However, when the regularly paying monthly rent to respondent No.4. respondent No.4 tried to evict the petitioner, he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.473 of 2014, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking a decree 3 of permanent injunction against interference with his possession. The said suit"? was decreed in favour of the petitioner, on 04.05.2022. Against the same, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal, which is pending. It is further contended that earlier, the respondents demolished the tin shed erected by the petitioner; the petitioner has rebuilt the same and continued in possession of the same. Aggrieved by the proposal of the respondents calling for tenders for leasing out the two plots - Plot No.1 (Plot A) to an extent of Ac.0-37.09 cents or 1795 square yards and Plot No.2 (Plot B) to an extent of Ac.0-38.22 cents 1850 square yards, over a part of which the petitioner has erected a tin shed, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. or Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been in possession of the shop allotted to him and has been paying regular monthly rentals and has incurred substantial expenditure in erecting the shops. He 5. relies on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.26018 of 2022. Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that initially in 2013, a proposal was made to lease out a vacant site belonging to the 4 respondent to seven individuals, including the petitioner, for an area of 3' x IT sq. ft., each, on a monthly lease basis, subject to approval by the competent authority. However, the said lease was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, who is the competent authority. It is argued that the last lease amount received from the petitioner was in June 2014. 6. th 4 Subsequently, in 2016, the shops were removed and a Trust office was constructed over the same. It is further contended that the petitioner has no \ locus standi to file the present writ petition. Considered the rival submissions. 7. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the proceedings of the 8. respondents, proposing to auction the leasehold rights in respect of the subject property. The petitioner, however, has no locus standi to challenge the same under the guise of the alleged lease granted in 2013, which was subject to approval by the competent authority, and the same was never approved. 9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further relies on a Panchanama conducted in 2016, which evidences the delivery of possession of the subject property to the 4'^ respondent. A copy of the said Panchanama has been placed before this Court. In addition, copies of the plaint, written statement, and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.473 of 2014 have also been placed before the Court. It also appears from the record that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar writ petition in the year 2021, seeking to restrain the respondents from leasing out the subject property. A perusal of the proceedings of the year 2013, under which a lease was allegedly granted to the petitioner, reflects that the same was subject to approval by the competent authority. The documents placed on record also indicate that the lease was never approved. Further, the Panchanama 10. 5 conducted in 2016 confirms that possession of the land was delivered to the'^ respondent trust. 11. It is also relevant to note that the of 2014, did not disclose that the alleged lease subject to the approval of the competent authority. Moreover, the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, who is the competent authority and who had declined to approve the lease in the suit proceedings. petitioner, in the plaint in O.S.No.473 granted in his favour was were also not brought on record 12. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution adjudicate on the issue of whether the petitioner of India, cannot IS in possession of the subject property or not. Apart from the same, the challenge in the writ petition is to the proceedings of the 4'^ respondent issued in terms of the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003. If the petitioner is of the view that the injunction granted in O.S.No.473 of 2014 has been violated, it is always open to avail the remedy available under law. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The observations made hereinabove adjudication of the present writ petition and the are only for the purpose of same will not come in the way of the appeal(s), proceeding(s), if any, pending in respect of the subject shop. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. S S Bhatt Advocate [OPUC] 2. TwoCCsto GP For Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri. VV N Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP For Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. AL -fl 1 HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20371 OF 2025 g 18 SEP 2TO5 ^ Current Section ^ m Co/# DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS