APHC010506592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26829/2025 Between: 1. GUJJURU TRINADH RAO, , S/O LATE SUIYA RAO, AGE 71 YEARS, D.NO. 12-23, PEDDADEVANGULA STREET, SOMPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-532284. 2. GUJJURU JAGANNADHA RAO, , S/O LATE SUIYA RAO, AGE 73 YEARS. FLAT NO. 302, ANJANADRI ENCLAVE, KAPPARADA, NGGOS COLONY, MURALINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-530007. 3. S. LAKSHMI,, W/O PATHAN SAHI, D/O LATE SUIYA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, NABARANGAPUR, ODLSHA-764059. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTIR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI KODANDA RAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, SOMPETA, SRIKAKULAMDISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM. 6. THE TAHASILDAR, TAHSILDARS OFFICE, SOMPETA, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SP, SUPERINTENDENTOFFICE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER SDPO, SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICE, KASHIBUGGA, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SOMPETA POLICE STATION, SOMPETA, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th Respondent of Endovmients Department, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry. without giving an opportunity of hearing or calling for objections from the petitioners, high-handedly trying to demolish the dwelling House property in D.No. 12-23 in survey No. 259/2A and also affixed a flexi board of caution notice in front of the petitioners' house stating that the property belongs to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Sompeta, and cautioning the general public not to deal with the properly and trying to setup the Endowment office in the petitioners house and also the 9th Respondent calling the petitioners to the Police Station unnecessarily is illegal, irregular. Arbitrary, Violation of Principle of natural justice and offends Article 14, 19, 21 and 300- A of Constitution Of India and allowing the Writ Petition in the circumstamces of the case and consequently seaside the caution Notice which affixed in front of my house and consequently direct the 4th and 5th respondents not to disturb the petitioners peaceful possession and 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 direct the 4th and 9th respondents not demolish the dwelling House property in D.No. 12- 23 in survey No. 259/2A and also consequently direct the respondents to remove affixed a flexi board of caution notice in front of the petitioners' house and not to disturb the petitioner’s possession till the pending of this writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The court made the following ORDER:- The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:- “……declaring the action of the 4th respondent of the Endowments Department, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry. without giving an opportunity of hearing or calling for objections from the petitioners, high- handedly trying to demolish the dwelling House property in D.No.12-23 in survey No. 259/2A and also affixed a flexi board of caution notice in front of the petitioners' house stating that the property belongs to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Sompeta, and cautioning the general public not to deal with the properly and trying to setup the Endowment office in the petitioners house and also the 9th Respondent calling the petitioners to the Police Station unnecessarily is illegal, irregular. Arbitrary, Violation of Principle of natural justice and offends Article 14, 19, 21 and 300- A of Constitution of India and allowing the Writ Petition in the circumstances of the case and consequently set aside the caution Notice which affixed in front of my house and consequently direct the 4th and 5th respondents not to disturb the petitioners peaceful possession and pass…….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Simhachalam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri Deva Deepak, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent Temple. With the consent of all the counsel, the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 4 3. The petitioners who are senior citizens, have instituted the present writ petition seeking direction against the respondents in attempting to demolish the dwelling house of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submits that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring in D.No.12-23 in Sy.No.259/2A situated at Sompeta Village & Mandal, Srikakulam District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'). He submits that the subject property was acquired by the petitioners through the judgment of partition in O.S.No.93 of 1993, which was confirmed in A.S. No.1 of 2001 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta vide Judgment dated 19.03.2008. He submits that ever since the partition, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and to the petitioners’ utter surprise, a caution flexi board was affixed at the subject property to evict them, stating that the land belongs to the 4th respondent Temple. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities are trying to demolish the subject property and the said action of the respondents was not preceded by any prior notice, which is against the principles of natural justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Temple referring to the proceedings dated 25.09.2025 of the 3rd respondent, submits that the petitioners possessed the land from one Smt.G.V.Padmavathi against whom proceedings were initiated by the temple authorities vide O.A. No.327 of 1971 for her eviction from the subject property and the same was ended in 5 their favour vide eviction orders dated 27.10.2011., which was stayed by the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad, vide interim orders dated 12.01.2012 in C.M.A. No.26 of 2012. He submits that during the pendency of the C.M.A., Smt. G.V.Padmavathi (appellant therein) died issue less and after her death, the vacant/subject land was occupied by the petitioners herein. At last, the learned counsel fairly submits that if the respondent Temple initiate any action against the petitioners, the same would be taken in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 i.e., Act 30 of 1987. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material available on record. 7. Apparently, no prior notice was issued in respect of eviction by the 4th respondent Temple before affixing the caution flexi board. In this context, it is apt to refer to the constitutional Court mandate in A.K Kraipak Vs. Union of India1, wherein, the Apex court had unequivocally held that no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing/opportunity. The said dictum was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal2. 8. Considering the submissions made and in the light of above stated legal position, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 (1969) 2 SCC 262 2 (2023) 6 SCC 1 6 not to take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property, without following due procedure as stated above i.e., Act 30 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. It is made clear that petitioners shall not make constructions in the subject property or alienate the same to the third parties. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 13.10.2025 GVK 7 36 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.26829 of 2025 Date: 13.10.2025 GVK