APHC010487242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25514/2025 Between: 1. SRIKANTHAM BHANODHAYA RAJESWARAO, S/O LATE SURYA PRAKASARAO AGED ABOUT 44 YRS. HINDU, ARCHAKA R/O H.NO.6-169, NEAR RAJARAJESWARI DEVI TEMPLE, MUKTESWARAM-533211. INAVILLI MANDAL. DR BRA KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI- 522503.AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA-521225. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA-533001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, AMALAPURAM-533201. DR BRA KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI MUKTESWARA AND MULESWARASWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM THOTTARAMUDI (V) - 533211. AINAVILLI MANDAL. DR BRA KONASEEEMA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the issue respondent authorities in interfering with the re-construction work of the old dilapidated tiled house bearing D.No.6-169 situated in an extent Ac.0.l0 cents out of Ac.0.40cents out of full Ac.4.40cents in R.S.No.62/5 of Thottaramudi (v) Ainavilli Mandal, Dr BRA Konaseema District at the active instance of the illegal encroachers of the temple land and persons who are enemical towards as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 5 not to interfere with the petitioner's house property D.No.6-169reconstruction of the situated in an extent out of full Ac.4.40cents in R.S.No.62/5 of Thottaramudi (v) Ainavilli Mandal, Dr BRA Konaseema District without following due process and grant such other just relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. 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 to grant interim direction directing the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with the reconstruction of the petitioner's house property D.No.6-169 situated in an extent Ac.0.l0cents out of Ac.0.40cents out of full Ac.4.40cents in R.S.No.62/5 of Thottaramudi (v) Ainavilli Mandal, Dr BRA Konaseema District pending disposal of the main writ petition and grant such other just relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25514/2025 The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Pappu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondent authorities are interfering with the reconstruction of his residential house, which is a tiled house in a dilapidated condition. It is contended that around 40 years ago, four archakas of the subject temple constructed the subject house for their residential purpose. Later, three of the archakas constructed their own residential houses and moved out of the subject house. The petitioner continued to reside in the same house. Since the structure had reached a dilapidated condition, the petitioner sought to reconstruct it after informing the temple authorities. However, the impugned notice has been given by the 5th respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in 1859, one Sistla Govindayya constructed the subject temple(s) and endowed a property of an extent of Ac.23.00 cents. He was the trustee of the temples during his lifetime. The forefathers of the petitioner's family took over the management of the trust and were managing the temple and the archakatvam. However, in 1961, pursuant to a compromise arrangement with the Endowments Department and the Archakas, the Archakas agreed to surrender an extent of 4 5.69 acres of land to the department out of 13.89 acres that they had enjoyed as service Inam. In addition to the same, an extent of Ac.0.40 cents of land was earmarked for residential purposes. In which the four archakas have jointly constructed a tiled house and have been residing there for 40 years. Three of them have moved out of the house after constructing their own building(s). When the petitioner proposed building a new structure in place of the dilapidated house, the respondents issued the impugned proceedings. Thus, the instant writ petition is filed. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent temple argues that the subject land is meant for residential use; however, the archakas are using it for commercial purposes without informing the temple authorities. Therefore, the impugned proceedings have been issued. 5. Considered the submissions. Since through the impugned proceedings, the respondents have called for an explanation from the petitioner, to which the petitioner is under an obligation to submit his explanation. Without submitting the same and approaching this court for issuance of a writ against the said proceedings would amount to a premature approach. Having regard to the same, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. 6. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to give reply by way of an explanation/objections to the proceedings of the respondent No.5, dated 08.09.2025. The petitioner shall submit his 5 explanation within one (01) week from the date of receipt of this order. Upon filing of explanation/objections of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 shall dispose of the same, within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 19.09.2025 MSI 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25514/2025 Date: 19.09.2025 MSI