Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38640 (AP)

Reddy Suryakumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle

WP/6516/2016 · 2025-02-19

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010746902016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6516/2016 Between: Reddy Suryakumari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principle and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. 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:- “…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 his property bearing Door No.10-23-14 in total extent of 161 Sq Yds of in R.S No.45 of Tallamudunurupadu Village, Tadepalligudem inspite of pendency of O.A.No.585/2012 on the file of on the file of 2 Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad Camp at Kakinada is illegal, irregular arbitrary and violative of provisions under 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 respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners property and pass…”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner purchased an extent of 27 ¾ sq.yards from one kollapareddy srinivas for valuable sale consideration of Rs.27,800/- and another extent of 133 1/3 from the said srinivas on 25.06.1993 for valuable consideration of Rs.66,670/-. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights. While so, the 3rd respondent filed O.A.No.585 of 2012 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 83 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and directed the petitioner to appear before the Camp Court on 06.06.2013. The petitioner engaged an advocate and has also filed detailed counter. While so, all of a sudden the 3rd respondent has issued a notice on 10.02.2016 informing that they are going to conduct auction by way of tender- cum-public auction as per rules and directed to handed over the premises within 15 days. The 3rd respondent is threatening to dispossess the petitioner by way of tender-cum-public auction notice. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr M.Lalith Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and 3 the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending O.A.No.585 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.No.585 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. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 19.02.2025 TM 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6516/2016 Date :19.02.2025 TM