APHC010541702024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28252/2024 Between: Golamari Srinivas Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DHARANI KUMAR B Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 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 any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the orders passed in Rc.No.5/2024, dated 18-10-2024 during pendency of the W.P.No.21592/2009 before this Hon’ble High court as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set-aside the said orders….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.44½ cents out of Ac.6.01 cents in Survey No.206/B of Markapur Revenue Village and Mandal, Prakasam district. Out of which, the petitioner has sold an extent of Ac.0.17½ cents to third parties and the petitioner is currently in possession of Ac.0.27 cents in Ac.6.01 cents in Survey No.206/B of Markapur Revenue Village and Mandal, Prakasam district (for short “subject property”). While things stood thus, on 30.09.2024, the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 83 (2) of the Act 30/87 stating that the said property is an Inam land and the property was clearly entered in the register under Section 38 of the then Endowments Act 17/1996. The 4th respondent claiming Ac.4.26 cents in Survey No.206/B (Ac.1.25 cents) and in Survey No.208 (Ac.2.99 cents) of Markapur Revenue Village since 1980s prior to the enactment of the AP Endowments Act apart from other lands. Orders were passed by the then MRO/Tahsildar vide Rc.A4/6019/76, dated 09.02.1984 under Inam Abolition Act holding that the land is not an Endowments. Against the same, appeal was preferred by the Endowments before the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein vide order dated 22.08.1996, it was declared that the lands in Survey No.206/B and 208 apart from other survey numbers does not belong to endowment/institution and that the lands in Survey No.309 for Ac.12.44 cents and 497/B for Ac.29.40 cents only belong to Endowment/Institution. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred revision before CCLA, wherein vide order dated 3 08.05.2009 in proceedings No.V1/926/96, the CCLA upheld the order of the RDO. Aggrieved by the order of CCLA, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.21962 of 2009 whereby they are claiming land to be an endowment is Ac.4.26 cents in Survey Nos.206/B (Ac.1.25 cents) and 208 (Ac.2.99 cents) only and sought protection from alienation for the said extent of land seeking protection from further alienation and not the entire extent of lands in the judgment of CCLA. As such, it is clear that the subject property of Ac.0.44½ cents in Survey No.206/B of Markapur Revenue Village and Mandal, Prakasam district is not being claimed by the Endowment Department. While so, the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 30.09.2024 to the petitioner under Section 83 (2) of Act 30/87 asking to explain within seven days from the date of notice, with regard to why should not be treated as an encroacher under Section 83 of the Act 30/87. If there is no explanation, the petitioner is directed to vacate the schedule property; failing which, appropriate action will be taken as per the provisions of Section 83 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/87. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a reply notice through an advocate dated 19.10.2024 to the notice dated 30.09.2024. Surprisingly, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.5/2024, dated 18.10.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment and handover the possession to the temple; failing which, action will be taken for removal of encroachment and possession will be taken 4 by following the procedure contemplated. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.Koneti Raja Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Dharani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr.Mekapotula Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, even though the 4th respondent did not have any powers, has forcibly demolished the structure/room and evicted the petitioner from the subject land in excess of the powers vested with him over a private land. He further submits that the 4th respondent is claiming title in view of the amendment of Inam Act, 2013 and the same is under challenge by way of SLP (Civil) No.7659/2021 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that the amendment is invalid and/or it is held that the amendment cannot take retrospective effect, then the petitioner will be deprived of subject property. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the 4th respondent-temple is classified under Section 6(a)(ii) of Endowments Act 5 30/87 and it is under the Administrative Control of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupati. He further submits that there is an efficacious alternative remedy provided under Section 83(6) of the Endowment Act (As amended through the Amended Act 36/2023) on the impugned eviction orders, to prefer an appeal before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the orders challenged in this writ petition. But the petitioner did not approach the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. Hence, the 4th respondent took possession of the present subject property along with other properties under encroachment of various persons on 11.11.2024 and hence, the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.Lands-5/2024, dated 18.10.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment in the subject property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order; failing which, action will be taken under due process of law, as contemplated under Section 83 (3) of the Endowments Act 30/87 for removal of encroachment and possession will be taken by following the said procedure as contemplated. Even though, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to remove the 6 encroachment, the petitioner did not choose to remove the encroachment. Hence, the 4th respondent took possession of the subject property on 11.11.2024 itself and hence, the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the property. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the 4th respondent has taken over the possession of the subject property. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach proper forum and take steps for recovery of the possession of the subject property. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 24-01-2025 BMS