APHC010509782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26242 OF 2025 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O MOULALI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NEAR RANGANAYAKA - SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, ROBERTSONPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMITTER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. SRI RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, ROBERTSONPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent to direct the petitioner herein to hand over the property situated in Sy.No.388/3, 4 to an extent of 096 Sq. yards, Robertsonpet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, pursuant to ex-parte Order and Decree dated 21.04.2025 made in O.A.No.57 of 2023 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, particularly when 2 I.A.No.733 of 2025 in O.A.No.57 of 2023 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.03.2025 is pending adjudication on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani and consequently grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Notice dated 01.08.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Notice dated 01.08.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent, including dispossession of the petitioner from the property situated in Sy.No.388/3, 4 to an extent of 096 Sq. yards Robertsonpet, Machiiipatnam, Krishna District bounded by: East: Municipality West: Endowments site occupied by Abdul Gulzar North ; Endowments site occupied by Abdul Gulzar South: Endowments site occupied by Abdul Gulzar pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. PULIPATI RADHIKA 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26242 OF 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3rd respondent directing the petitioner herein to hand over the property to the extent of 096 Square yards situated in Sy.No.388/3, 4, Robertsonpet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, pursuant to ex parte Order and Decree dated 21.04.2025 passed in O.A.No.57 of 2023 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. 3. The petitioner, claiming to be a petty trader, claims that he has been in possession and occupation of the subject property. It is contended that before the petitioner, petitioner’s father was in occupation of the subject property. The respondents, seeking eviction of the petitioner, approached the Endowments Tribunal by way of an application. After receipt of notice, the petitioner engaged counsel to represent him before the Tribunal. However, an ex parte order was passed by the Tribunal on 21.04.2025, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. 4. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the petitioner was not aware of the ex parte order till such time the respondents sought to execute the decree of the Tribunal. He further argues 4 that an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree has been filed and is pending for consideration. However, during the pendency of the said application, if the petitioner is evicted, the application filed by the petitioner for set aside of the ex parte order would be rendered infructuous. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the order of the Tribunal is non-est, having regard to the fact that a Member of the Tribunal passed the impugned order on the day when the Chairman was not presiding over the Tribunal. He argues that in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’), the Tribunal must consist of both a Chairman and a Member. Therefore, any order of the Tribunal should be under the Signature of the Chairman and the Member, and they together constitute the Tribunal; they cannot act in isolation. 6. Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, appearing for respondent No.3, argues that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order passed by the Tribunal, since there is an alternative remedy of appeal/revision to the High Court under Section 88 of the Act. She further refers to Rule 22 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010, and argues that in the absence of the Chairman, the Member is empowered to act and is competent to pass orders, including decrees. Therefore, the impugned order passed is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is a valid order under the provisions of the Act. 5 She further contends that the petitioner is claiming rights to the subject property based on adverse possession. 7. Considered the submissions. Section 162(7) of the Act provides that no act or proceedings of any Tribunal shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its members or any defect in the constitution or reconstitution thereof. 8. Having regard to the provisions of Section 162(7) of the Act the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is non-est, in view of the fact that the Member of the Tribunal passed the same in the absence of the Chairman, does not merit consideration and the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Further, in the light of availability of an adequate alternative remedy of Appeal/Revision provided under the provisions of the Act against the order of the Tribunal, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. The petitioner is therefore granted liberty to avail alternative remedy of appeal/revision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till filing of such an appeal/revision, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 26.09.2025 BSK 7 10 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26242 OF 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 BSK