1 APHC010235052023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 504 OF 2023 Between: 1. M/S. MANSAS TRUST,, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUBREGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. M SURYA RAO, S/O GURUVULU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.1-93-10 SECTORV, M.B.P. 2 COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. M VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.1-93-10 SECTORV, M.B.P. COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. K GANGARATNAM, W/O. SARVASALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.49-48-9/6, AKKAYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAMDISTRICT. 9. BHUGATHA RAMU, S/O. LATE APPALANAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O. BONI VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. 10. DOKARI RAMULU, S/O LATE SURYUDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O. BONI VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Mr.DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 2. Mr.O MANOHAR REDDY, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J) Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3383 of 2022, the present intra Court Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-respondent No.5 is the said writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioners / Respondent Nos.6 to 10 herein sought the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the 2nd respondent in including the lands in RS No 268/2 an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, 269/2 an extent of Ac.13.68 cents, 269/4 an extent of Ac. 0.87 cents, 270/3 an extent of Ac.0.85 cents 271/4 an extent of Ac.3.01 cents, 262/2P an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, 262/3 an extent of Ac.0.12, cents 262/4 an extent of Ac.0.28 cents, 265 an extent of Ac.4.66 cents, 266/2 an extent of Ac.0. 23 cents, 266/3 an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, 266/4 an extent of Ac.0.51 cents, 266/5 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/6 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/7 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/8 an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, 266/9 an extent of Ac.0.16 cents, 266/10 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/11 an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, 266/12 an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, 266/13 an extent of Ac.0.14 cents, 266/14 an extent of Ac.0.16 cents, 266/15 an extent of Ac.2.42 cents, 122 Part an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of Pandrangi village of Padmanabham Mandal in the Prohibited List under Section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act even though the petitioners are the owners of the lands as illegal, arbitrary and one without power and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to delete the lands from the prohibited list.” 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. 4 4. Initially the Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 16.09.2022 granting liberty to the writ petitioners to make online application for deletion of the subject matter properties from the prohibited category list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on filing of the same, the 2nd respondent / Commissioner of Endowments, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada was directed to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months thereafter. 5. Seeking review of the said order, inter alia, on the premise that the specific contentions with reference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 (for short “the Act 1956”) and the orders passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act 1956, which had attained finality etc., were not considered, the writ petitioners filed Review I.A.No.2 of 2022. 6. The learned Single Judge allowed the said review by an order dated 03.11.2022 and simultaneously disposed of the Writ Petition on the same day opining that the subject matter properties are private patta lands and inclusion of said properties in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is illegal. The learned Judge also directed the respondents to delete the subject matter properties from the 5 prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Act within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in Review I.A.No.2 of 2022 and W.P.No.3383 of 2022, the 5th respondent-Trust filed W.A.No.1011 and 1013 of 2022. A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the both sides, allowed the Writ Appeals vide orders dated 25.01.2023. The Division Bench remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the review application afresh and to pass a reasoned order, after hearing both sides, that depending upon the outcome of the review petition, the writ petition shall also be heard afresh, if need arises. After disposal of the Writ Appeals, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by an order dated 25.04.2023. The learned Single Judge passed a separate order on the same day i.e., 25.04.2023 and allowed Review I.A.No.2 of 2022, which is clarificatory in nature. 8. Heard Mr.D.Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel for the appellant-Trust. Also heard Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 10–Writ Petitioners. Mr.Nagaraju Nagaru, learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant made elaborate submissions with reference to the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the 6 provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Endowments Act”). He has drawn the attention of the Court to the material on record including Section 43 Register and the relevant entries therein, concerning the subject matter properties to contend that in view of the statutory presumption regarding the said entries and the scheme of the Act, roving enquiry much less with regard to disputed questions cannot be conducted in the Writ Petition. He submits that the properties in question were donated to the Trust, which was notified under Section 6(a)(i) of the Endowments Act and the same were included in Section 43 Register on 18.02.2010, that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Ors.,1 the writ petitioners, who are seeking deletion of subject matter properties from the prohibited category have to approach the Endowments Tribunal, that two specific contentions in this regard were raised in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, apart from various factual aspects, but the learned Single Judge had not taken the same into consideration except referring to the same, in the impugned order. 10. The learned counsel also contends that the order dated 20.06.2022 of the Joint Collector in the revision filed by the Trust under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 1 (2016) 2 ALD 236 FB 7 (for short “the ROR Act”) was in fact questioned by the Trust in W.P.No.10161 of 2023 and a learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by an order dated 21.04.2023 with a direction to the Trust to prefer an appeal before the 4th respondent-RDO / Appellate Authority, who in turn was directed to dispose of the appeal without reference to any of the observations made by the Joint Collector / 2nd respondent in the order dated 15.06.2022. He submits that even this aspect was also not considered by the learned Single Judge and the order impugned in the appeal, relying on the said order of the Joint Collector dated 15.06.2022, is not sustainable. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge after remand, in fact reaffirmed the order which was passed on 03.11.2022 without considering the crucial contentions and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He also submits, the writ petitioners have not filed any document as to how the right accrued to them over the subject matter properties. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in W.P.(PIL) No.70 of 2022 dated 29.03.2023; W.A.No.500 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012 etc., 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioners / unofficial respondents, on the other hand, made extensive submissions with reference to the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the material on record, including the Visakhapatnam District Gazette, dated 11.08.1960. He submits that the subject matter lands covered under T.D.1251 of 8 Pandrangi Village was declared as Inam land, not held by an institution except the lands covered under T.D.Nos.894, 903 and further the competent authority–Inam Deputy Tahsildar passed an order dated 30.01.1961 after conducting an enquiry under Section 7(1) of the said Act holding that the vendors of the writ petitioners are entitled for Ryotwari patta and granted the same in their favour. He submits that the said order has attained finality and the writ petitioners purchased the property in question in the year 2000 and are in possession of the same. He further submits that when such is the position, the inclusion of the subject matter properties in the prohibited category list is illegal and in fact, unless the temple / religious institution is the owner of the property, the same cannot be included under Section 22-A(i)(c) of the Registration Act. He also submits that even in the revision petition filed by the Trust before the Joint Collector, its claim in respect of the subject matter properties was negatived by recording categorical findings and the various contentions advanced on behalf of the Trust on the basis of entries in Section 43 Register merits no appreciation. 12. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the writ petitioners are tracing out their title through their vendors by virtue of the proceedings under Inam Abolition Act, whereas the Trust got subject matter properties included in the Section 43 Register in the year 2010. He further argues that no procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the 9 Endowments Act was followed before including the subject matter properties in Section 43 Register and the entries therein have no legal efficacy. He placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge in W.P.No.10801 of 2021 dated 22.11.2021 in support of his contentions. He submits that in the light of the material available on record, the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the Writ Petition, there is no illegality in the impugned order and no interference is warranted. He accordingly, seeks dismissal of the Writ Appeal, as it is devoid of merits. 13. This Court has considered the submissions made. Perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions and a close reading of the order impugned in the Writ Appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for remand and as such is not inclined to examine the rival contentions in detail. 14. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the relevant aspects with reference to the earlier order dated 16.09.2022 disposing of the Writ Petition, the orders passed in the review petition, as also the order of disposal dated 03.11.2022 referred to above, and the appeals preferred thereof, the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.1011 & 1013 of 2022 have already been stated supra and for the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated. Suffice to state that after remand by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 25.01.2023 in the above said appeals, the learned Single Bench passed the impugned 10 order. From a perusal of the said order it is discernible that, the learned Single Judge referred to the case of the writ petitioners in paras 2 to 4 and the stand of the 5th respondent-Trust as per its counter in paras 5 and 6 respectively. The contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners were mentioned in paras 7 to 9, the contentions of the 5th respondent in para 10. 15. Having taken note of the contentions with reference to the provisions of the Act, 1956, raised on behalf of the writ petitioners and pleas raised on behalf of the Trust with reference to the provisions of the Endowments Act and Full Bench Judgment in W.P.No.343 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015, the learned Judge without formulating the points for consideration recorded the conclusions in para 11 of the impugned order. No specific reasons / findings with reference to the applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble Full bench, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the other legal aspects were recorded. It appears as though the learned Single Judge was carried away by the order of the dismissal dated 15.06.2022 passed by the revisional authority / Joint Collector in the revision filed by the Trust under the Pattadar Passbooks Act. Be that as it may. The disposal of the Writ Petition opining that the subject matter properties are private patta lands without recording any specific findings on various legal aspects advanced on both sides, in the considered opinion of this Court is legally not sustainable. 11 16. Further, the order under challenge, with due respect, does not appear to have been passed by a fresh and comprehensive look at the matter. In fact the learned Single Judge passed the very same order dated 03.11.2022, which was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1013 of 2022. The impugned order dated 25.04.2023 is verbatim reproduction of the order dated 03.11.2022. 17. For the afore going reasons, this Court is constrained to set aside the order under challenge and remand the Writ Petition to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits or otherwise of the contentions advanced on both sides and the Writ Petition shall be disposed of in accordance with Law, uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court or the conclusions / opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the order under Appeal. 18. In the result, the order dated 25.04.2023 is set aside and Writ Appeal is allowed with the above directions. No costs. 19. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date:07.11.2025 Ssv 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 504 OF 2023 Date:07.11.2025 Ssv