/ ' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATT-^i^^l^^lE:^ FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 1 PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAp, WRIT APPEAL NO: 114 OF 2025 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.12.2024 in W.P. No. 1876 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Vepada Varahalamma (Died), W/o Late Soma Raju, D/o Virothi Bangaraiah @ Vishathu Bangaraiah, Aged about 83 years, R/o No.7-2- 18, Velpula Street, Near Ralayam, Anakapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, (Visakhapatnam Old District). 2. Vepada Ravi Shankar Srinivas, S/o Late Soma Raju, aged about 47 years, R/o No.7-2-18, Velpula Street, Near Ralayam, Anakapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, (Visakhapatnam Old District). 3. Mutha Vara Lakshmi, D/o Late Soma Raju, W/o Mutha Nuka Raju, aged about 53 years, R/o No.7-2-18, Velpula Street, Near Ralayam, Anakapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, (Visakhapatnam Old District) ...APPELLANTS ^ AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, State of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam. Sri Paradesamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep.by Manager/Executive Officer, Lankelapaiem Village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 8. The Tahsildar, Paravada, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9. Vepada Lakshmi, W/o Late Krishna Rao, R/o Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District. 10. Vepada Vasanthi, D/o Late Krishna Rao, R/o Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District. 11. Vepada Manesh, S/o Late Krishna Rao, R/o Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District 12. Vepada Vimala, D/o Late Krishna Rao, R/o Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District. (RR 9 to 12 are impleaded as per the Court Order dt 22.10. 2024 vide orders passed in I.A No. 02 of 2023) 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS lA 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 stay the operation of orders dt. 10.12.2024 passed in W.P. No. 1876 of 2024 pending disposal of Writ Appeal.^ lA NO: 2 OF 2025 ^ Petition under Section ISTlDPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, ad-measuring Ac. 3.02 in Sy.No. 189-1 of Lankelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal pending disposal of Writ Appeal. 0 r Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RAVI TEJA DOMMETI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 6 to 8: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4:GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. SRINIVASU, SC FOR^ ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12:-— The Court made the following: JUDGMENT % APHC010073182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3522] WRIT APPEAL NO: 114/2025 Between: I.Vepada Varahalamma died, w/o late Soma Raju, d/o Virothi Bangaraiah @ Vishathu Bangaraiah, aged about 83 years, r/o No.7-2- 18, Velpula Street, Near Ralayam, Anakapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, (Visakhapatnam Old District). 2.Vepada Ravi Shankar Srinivas, s/o late Soma Raju, aged about 47 years, r/o No.7-2-18, Velpula Street, near Ralayam, Anakapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, (Visakhapatnam Old District). S.Mutha Vara Lakshmi, d/o late Soma Raju, w/o Mutha Nuka Raju, aged about 53 years Anakapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, (Visakhapatnam Old District) r/o No.7-2-18, Velpula Street, near Ralayam, ...APPELLANT{S) AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary to Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, State of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The Asst Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam. 5. Sri Paradesamma Ammavari Devasthanam, rep by Manager/Executive Officer, Lankelapaiem Village, Paravada 2 HCJ & Dr.YLR,J W.A.No.114 of 2025 Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 8. The Tahsildar, Paravada, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, w/o late Krishna 9. Vepada Lakshmi Visakhapatnam District. 10. Vepada Vasanthi, d/o Visakhapatnam District. 11. Vepada Manesh, s/o late Krishna Rao r/o Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District. 12.Vepada Vimala, d/o late Krishna Rao r/o Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District. Rao r/o Anakapalli late Krishna Rao r/o Anakapalli RR (9 to 12 are impleaded as per the Court order dt.22.10.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No.02 of 2023) ...RESPONDENT(S): Advocate for Appellant Advocates for Respondents Mr. Ravi Teja Dommeti CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR Dr JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO :<J|. March 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Dr. YLR,J) DATE The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment order impugned, dated 10.12.2024 and passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in/and W.P.No.1876 of 2022, whereby, while closing I.A.No.1 of 2024 granting liberty 4 3 t*s HCJ & Dr.YLR,J W.A.No.114 of 2025 to the proposed respondents therein to pursue their remedies before the AP Endowments Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in accordance with law, the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed holding that the Writ Petition was not maintainable to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article-226 of the Constitution of India and the Appellants had to approach ‘the Tribunal’ for redressal of their grievance in respect of the subject land, since ‘the Tribunal’ alone got competent jurisdiction to decide the issue. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts in the background of which the present controversy has arisen are as under: One Virothi Bangaraiah, the father of the Appellant No.1, obtained the land admeasuring Acs.3.13 cents in Sy.No.181/1 of Lankelapalem Village, Parvada Mandal, through a settlement patta No.436 and had been peacefully enjoying it. He executed a registered will vide Document No.13/1970 dated 19.02.1970 registered with Sub-Registrar Office Anakapalli in favour of the Appellant No.1 and her husband Vepada Somaraju. After the demise of Appellant No.l’s father the land devolved on her and her husband. The Revenue Authorities mutated her name in the revenue records viz., Pattadar Passbook, Title Deed, Adangal and 1-B. A survey report was also issued stating that the Appellant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment over the property. 4 HG & Dr.YLR,J W.A.No.114 of 2025 The Endowment Authorities without having any right over the land or even without issuing notice to Appellant No.1 placed the subject land under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 stating that the land belongs to Endowments/Temple Authorities. The Appellant No.1 made an application to de-notify the subject land from the List of Prohibited Properties, but it appears no action was taken. Writ Petition was filed for the inaction of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in de-notifying the land. 3. Respondent No.4 filed Counter-Affidavit in the Writ Petition contending that the subject land belongs to Respondent No.5-Temple. Appellant No.1 had to approach the Tribunal under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’) as she got an alternative efficacious remedy and it was urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Respondent No.8 filed Counter-Affidavit in the Writ Petition contending that total extent of land measuring Acs.10.13 cents covered under Sy.No.189 of Lankelapalem Village is classified as government dry and the name of Paradesamma Grama Devatha” was recorded as pattadar vide patta No.436. As it is endowment land, it was published under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of ‘the Act’. Several registered sale transactions transpired in the land in Sy.No.189 in violation of Sections 80 and 81 of ‘the Act’ without any valid permission from the Endowment Department. Therefore Respondent No.4 filed O.A.No.13 of 2022 before the Endowments Tribunal for an injunction and obtained interim V 5 HCJ & Dr.YLR,J W.A.No.114 of 2025 orders to maintain Status-quo and the matter is pending. In the course of settlement operations, the settlement authorities entertained all the claims and determined the new rights under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and granted settlement pattas to all the eligible persons, and prepared settlement records. Neither the name of Appellant No.1 nor her vendor nor her vendor’s vendor is recorded in the settlement record as Pattadar. The learned Single Judge having heard the arguments of both sides, and having perused the record, dismissed the Interlocutory Application and the Writ Petition leaving it open to the Appellants to approach the Tribunal for an appropriate legal remedy. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the subject land belongs to the Appellants and dismissed the Writ Petition without considering the fact that the Endowment Authorities arbitrarily included the subject land in the List of Prohibited Properties without issuing notice or following due process, even though they have no valid claim. It is urged to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 8 argued that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the Appellants to approach the Endowments Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had rightly 7. 6 HCJ & Dr.YLR,J W.A.No.114 of 2025 dismissed the Writ Petition. There are no grounds whatsoever to interfere in the impugned order and requested to dismiss the Appeal. As per Section 87(1) (c) of ‘the Act’ the Endowments Tribunal has the power to enquire and decide as to whether any property is an endowment, if so, whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment. This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari v. Principal Secretary, Revenue ^ paragraph No.23.4, it is held as under: "... In other words, the registering authority can refuse registration of such a document covering the property belonging to any institution/endowment which is entered in the Register maintained under the provisions of Section 43 read with Section 45 of the Endowments Act. The aggrieved party, in that event, shall have to resort to a remedy that may be available under the Endowments Act. In short, as long as a property finds place in the prescribed Register, a document in respect of such property presented for its registration to the Registrar cannot be received and registered, unless such document is executed by a person statutorily empowered to do so or authorized by the endowment to do so.” In view of the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the Appellants by way of an Appeal before the Endowments Tribunal, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. The Appellants herein shall approach the Endowments Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the Writ is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. at 9. 10. ^2016 ALT (Rev) 41 (FB) 7 -'*1 HCJ & Dr.YLR,J W.A.No.114 of 2025 Be that as it may, the Writ Appeal is found to be without any merit and 11. is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to Sri Ravi Teja Dommeti, Advocate [OPUC] CC to Sri K. Srinivasu, SC for Endowments[OPUC] Endowments, High Court of Andhr^^ 2. One 3. Two CC’s to GP for Pradesh[OPUC] 4. Two CCs to 5. Three CD Copies. GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.114of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS