Narapilli Nageswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/14261/2016 · 2025-02-05
K Manmadha Rao
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35617 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35617 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010570922016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14261/2016 Between: Narapilli Nageswara Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
2. KANDA SRINIVASU SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (KS AND WG)
3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
“…to Issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from petitioner shops and building portions bearing D.No.10-1-22 Assessment No 1080009438 and D.No.10-1-10 Assessment No 1080000550 in R.S.No.45 of
Tadepalligudem Municipality thereby threatening to conduct auction and allot to third parties by way of tender-cum- public auction as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 and Rules framed there under and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the third respondent not to interfere into petitioners possession and enjoyment of the building property…”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner purchased 404.91 sq.yards vide different documents for lawful consideration from different persons and since from the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject properties with absolute rights. The petitioner constructed pucca buildings and shop rooms in the said extent with his hard earnings and has been regularly paying house tax to the authorities. The 3rd respondent is claiming ownership over the property and claiming the maktha from the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has filed three O.A.Nos.580 of 2012, 583 of 2012 and 592 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 83 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 against the petitioner. Pending O.As, the 3rd respondent issued notices to the other building owners in the same locality and declared that the lease is cancelled with effect from 10.02.2016.
But, without issuing any notices, the 3rd respondent is threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3 Heard Mr Sivam Jaswanth, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr Mangene Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending O.A.Nos.580, 583 and 592 of 2012 filed by the 3rd respondent before the A.P State Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad without issuing any notice, the 3rd respondent is threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. He further submits that the 3rd respondent is also proposing to conduct auction and allot the subject property to 3rd parties by way of tender- cum-public auction which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, the Hon’ble Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of O.A.Nos.580, 583 and 592 of 2012 within a period of Six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 05.02.2025 TM
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 14261/2016
Date :05.02.2025
TM