::1:: APHC010447352019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 20/2020 Between: 1. K VENKATA CHALAPATHI, S/O. K.C. SUBRAMANYAM, (DIED) 2. K. GUNASEKHAR, S/O. LATE K. VENKATACHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O., H.NO.18-1- 305, K.T. ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. K. ANANDA KUMAR, S/O. LATE K. VENKATACHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O., H.NO.18-1-305, K.T. ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. K. VALLU KUMARI, W/O. LATE K. VENKATACHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O., H.NO.18-1-305, K.T. ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE ASST COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SRI KANDALLA GOVINDACHARYULU TRUST, REP.BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHINNA BAZAAR STREET, ::2:: TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. SRI P C KRISHNA, S/O. P. CHENGARAYA CHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, KRISHNA FANCY AND BANGLES, R/O. DOOR NO. 10-2-156/B, GROUND FLOOR, DODDAPURAM STREET, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SRI K REDDAPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R I O. MODEL DIGITAL STUDIO AND VIDEO, DOOR NO. 10-2- 156/B, GROUND FLOOR, DODDAPURAM STREET, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. SRI N GOUTHAM BABU, S/O. N. VASANTHA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. YAK'S TAILOR, RIO. D. NO. 10-2-156/B, SHOP NO.1, FIRST FLOOR, DODDAPURAM STREET, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. SRI VASAVI XRYA VYSYA SEVA SAMAJAM, REP.BY ITS TREASURE SRI B. KRISHNA MURTHY, CHARTED ACCOUNTANT, R/O. D. NO.7-6-278, W ITTA STREET, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orders to allow th.e Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by setting aside the Decree and Order passed on 21.10.2019 in O.A. No. 610 of 2011 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 2. . ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.M.A.No.20 of 2020 This Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1. The present C.M.A. is filed by the appellants herein challenging the decree and order passed in O.A.No.610 of 2011, dated 21.10.2019. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the father of the appellants herein is a lessee of the subject property originally belongs to 2nd respondent from the year 1982 for a period of 20 years commencing from 15.02.1982 to 14.02.2002. But thereafter the father of the appellants herein was continued as lessee without there being any valid lease deed executed by the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent allowed the appellants herein to continue the occupation of the premises pursuant to the agreement of sale-cum-possession. He submits that pending eviction proceedings before the tribunal, the father of the appellants herein died and appellants were not brought on record while passing the decree and order against the father of the appellants, who died pending adjudication. ::4:: 2. He further submits that any award or decree against a dead person cannot be enforced. Therefore, the appellants herein are entitled to hold the subject premises and hence the decree and order liable to be dismissed. 3. On the other hand, respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit and also filed a memo dated 23.09.2025. As per the counter-affidavit, it is stated as under: <5. I submit that the then life trustee of the 2nd respondent trust herein contrary to the object of the trust leased out the petitioner schedule vacant site to one B. Janardhana Naidu under lease deed dated 31.03.1982 for a period of 20 years commencing from 15.02.1982 to 14.02.2002. Thereafter the Executive Officer issued notice to B. Janardhana Naidu vide Rc.No.59/1996, dated 15.01.1997 demanding to vacate the vacant land and handover the possession of the property. The 2nd respondent trust herein filed O.A.No.75 of 1997 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool U/s 83 of Act, 30 of 1987 against B. Janardhana Naidu. During the pendency of said O.A., the said B. Janardhana Naidu died. Consequently the said O.A. was abated on 15.07.1997. 7. I submit that the Commissioner of Endowments issued dated 25.05.2005 with a direction to the 2nd respondent trust herein to enter into compromise with the deceased and register sale deed in his favour. For enforcement of the procds dated 25.05.2005 the deceased filed W.P.No.26335 of 2009 before the Hon?ble Court and subsequently the said procds dated 25.05.2005 was withdrawn and in view of the withdrawn the said W.P.No.26335 of 2009 was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.08.2010. The deceased filed another W.P.No.17124/2011 before this Hon?ble court seeking a direction in not considering the claim of the deceased for sale of the scheduled property for market value. The said Writ Petition was also dismissed on the ground that there is no valid lease deed or any permission by the competent authority to authorizing the deceased to stay in the petition scheduled property. The petition scheduled site is situated in the busy commercial locality over which building with ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor was constructed and the deceased is receiving rent of Rs.30,000/- as on the date of filing the O.A. filed. The petition scheduled site is capable of fetching monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. The amount of Rs.2,500/- paid by the deceased was being adjusted for part payment of damages for ::5:: petition scheduled site. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the deceased and got reply but denied the liability to vacate the property and pay the damages.= 4. He also filed a memo wherein he filed orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.26335 of 2009, dated 03.08.2010 which was filed by the father of the appellants, wherein this Court passed an order as under: <Today, when the matter came up for consideration, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 and 2 produced before this Court, a copy of the memo dated 28.07.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the order dated 25.05.2005, in terms of which the petitioner is seeing registration of the subject land in his favour, was cancelled and the request of the Executive Officer-cum-Fit Person to permit him to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was rejected. In view of the above memo, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.= 5. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that admittedly the lease was granted in favour of the father of the appellants herein only for a period of 20 years. Even after the completion of the lease period the lessee / father of the appellants herein not delivered the vacant possession of the property as per the terms of the lease deed. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the subject property which cannot be agreed for the reason that the Executive Officer/2nd respondent has no authority to enter into any ::6:: agreement in respect of the property of Endowment as well as any trust and more over the petitioner did not file any suit for enforcement of the alleged agreement of sale. He further submits that the claim of the father of the appellants for execution of sale deed was clearly and categorically rejected by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 28.07.2010. He further submits that even though the appellants were continued in illegal occupation of the subject premises but he never choose to pay a single pai either towards lease amount in favour of the 2nd respondent. The Court below while passing order specifically found that the appellants/respondents therein have become encroachers as defined Under Section 83(1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short >Act 30 of 1987?). For better understanding Section 83(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 is extracted hereunder: <For the purpose of this Chapter the expression >encroacher? shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it= ::7:: 6. The Tribunal after came to a conclusion passed an order as under: <In the result, petition is allowed with costs, directing the respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition scheduled property within one month to the 2nd petitioner trust along with structures and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.08.2010 till delivery of possession of the property to the 2nd applicant. The Station House Officer, Tirupati Police Station, Chittoor District is directed to provide necessary police assistance in implementation of the above order to the petitioners, on requisition, in the event of failure of the respondents to comply with the orders.= 7. He further submits that after the orders of the tribunal dated 21.10.2019, the 2nd respondent evicted the appellants herein and possession was taken over by the 2nd respondent. In view of the pendency of the present CMA, the 2nd respondent is not in a position to conduct public auction to lease out the entire premises in favour of the prospective purchasers who will become successful bidder in public auction. If the public auction was conducted and the subject premise was leased out, the 2nd respondent will get good rate of income by way of monthly rent at minimum of Rs.30,000/- per month for each shop. 8. Considering the submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that there is no subsisting lease in favour of the appellants herein or through their ::8:: father. On perusal of the order of the Court below, it is clear and specific that the appellants herein are in possession without there being any valid permission or without valid lease deed. As contended by learned counsel for respondent, the appellants not substantiated in paying monthly rental in terms of the lease deed of the year 1982 even for any particular period either lease in subsistence or after completion of the lease even though they are in possession till 2019. The other admitted fact placed before the Court by the respondent herein is that pursuant to the decree and order of the tribunal, the 2nd respondent taken over the possession of the subject property. 9. As contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the decree/award passed against the father of the appellants who died pending proceedings is not a valid and liable to be set aside and should not be considered for the reason that even the father of the appellants does not have any right over the lease premises since lease is already expired and his occupation is only an unthorized and illegal occupation. It is settled law that an illegal occupant or encroacher not entitled any relief and cannot claim any equities against the other party. 10. In view of settled legal position of the law this Court not found any illegality or perversity with the decree and order passed by the ::9:: Tribunal. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. However, at the request of learned counsel for the appellants, if any belongings still existing at the subject premises, the appellants should be permitted to take away the same within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CMA shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 10.12.2025 krk ::10:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.M.A.No.20 of 2020 DT: 10.12.2025 krk 83