APHC010079632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL Nos: 408 AND 430 OF 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 408 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the common order dated 10.12.2024 in W.P. No. 36819 of 2012 on the file of the High Court. Between: Sri Gali Gopuram Mutt @ Vaikunta Kovil, 225, Chinna Bazar Street, Tirupati, Ghittoor District, rep. by its Fit Person / Executive Officer, (Endowments Dept.) ...Writ Appellants/Respondent No.5 AND 1. N. Koteswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ; Business, R/o. D. No. 6-10-402, Singala Gunta, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. K. Lakshmi Sai, W/o. K. Venugopal, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 18-2-243/C/7, Ashoknagar (Abbanna Colony), Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. C. Padmarani, W/o. Nagaraju, aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 13-270-B, Sainagar Colony, Jeevakonda, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. Y. Anasuyamma, W/o. Siddaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 14-124, Aravindanagar, Ravjivnagar Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5. R. Vimala, W/o. Shankar, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No. 6-12-160/2, Singalaguntai, Tirupati, Chittoor District. / ...Respondents No.1 to 5/Writ Petitioners No.1 to 5 6. ThO Assistant Commissioner of Endowments / Fit Person, Galigopuram Mattam (Namala Gopuram), Chinnabazaaru Veedhi Tirupati Town, Chittoor District. 7. The Commissioner of Endowments, , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. 8. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village,-Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. 9. Tirumala Tirupathi Devsthanams, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Executive Officer, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Respondents No.6 to 9/Writ Petitioners No.6 to 9 lA NO: 3 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 suspend the operation of the Final Order dated 10.12.2024 passed in WP. No. 36819 of 2012 by learned single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. V. S. VISHNURAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : SRI S. S. BHATT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 :GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS) APHC010079652025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 430 OF 2025 . Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 10.12.2024 in W.P.No. 36805 of 2012, on the file of the High Court. Between: Sri Gali Gopuram Mutt @ Vikunta Kovil, 225, Chinna Bazar Street, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rep. by its Fit Person / Executive Officer, (Endowments Dept.) ...Writ Appellants/Respondent No.5 AND 1. S Sadasivaiah, S/o. S. Thimmaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D-. No. 107, Seschachal Nagar, (L.I.C.), Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. G Vasanthamma, D/o. late G. Chenna Rayappa, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 18-8-54/1, 1st Floor. 18th ward, Maduranagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. S. Chellamma, W/o. late S. Sahadevaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: R/o. D.No. 417, Balajinagar, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 4. P. Sundaramma, w/o Narrasimhuli, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 18-1-547, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Respondents No.1 to 4/Writ Petitioners No.1 to 4 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments / Fit Person, Galigopuram Mattam (Namala Gopuram), Chinnabazaaru Veedhi Tirupati Town, Chittoor District. 6. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi Village, Vijauwada Rural, Krishna District. 7. The State pf Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue (Endowments) Departm^ntrCecretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. 8. Tirumala Tirupathi Devsthanams, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Executive Officer, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District^'' ...RespondentsNo.5 to 8/Writ PetitionersNo.5 to 8 lA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Final Order dated 10.12.2024 passed in WP. No. 36805 of 2012 by learned single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.’ Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K. V. S. VISHNURAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI S. S. BHATT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 ;GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS) The Court made the following Common Judgment: r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] ■II WRIT APPEAL NO: 408/2025 along with WRIT APPEAL No.430 of 2025 Between: Gali Gopuram Mutt @ Vaikunta Kovil ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) N Koteswara Reddy and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.KVS VISHNURAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.RATHANGA PANI REDDY K (STANDING COUNSEL FOR TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS) 2.SriSS BHATT 3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 15.07.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the common orders dated 10.12.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petitions vide W.P.Nos.36805 & 36819 of 2012; the respondent no.5 therein preferred these intra court appeals under clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. Inasmuch as these appeals stem out of common order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. .WJ^.!Nos.408 ^ 430 of2025 r 2 3. For expediency, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status in the writ petitions. 4. The contents of the writ affidavits, in brief, are that: The petitioners are doing petty businesses like selling water, juice, cool drinks, eatables like idly, dosa, wada, tea, coffee, fruits, photos, Balaji dollars and Kasi Dharam etc. at 2150^^ Alipiri steps near Namala Gopuram also called as Vaikuntakoil and Galigopuram Mutt. Earlier their predecessors did the same businesses to the knowledge of Endowment Department as well as Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. Nobody ever objected them or their predecessors for nd doing business. On the representation made by the petitioners, the 2 respondent- Commissioner of Endowments, on the recommendation of respondent no.l-the fit person- issued proceedings vide D.Dis.No.B5/26360/ 2011, allotting vacant site measuring 15 x 15 sq.feet, fixing the monthly rent at Rs.5,000/- and six months' rent shall be paid in advance and that the period of lease shall be three (03) years from the date of handing over the site. That, earlier, the authorities leased out shops to similarly situated persons, fixing monthly rent at Rs.2,000/-, however the petitioners agreed for the terms and conditions imposed in the proceedings issued by respondent no.2. Thereafter, the respondent kept the orders dated 22.10.2011 in abeyance without any reason. Consequently, the petitioners filed writ petitions .WJl.!?ios.408 <d 430 of2025 3 vide W.P.Nos.32142 & 32048 of 2011 seeking to declare the action of respondent no.2 in not implementing the orders dated 22.10.2011. In light of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 that allotment proceedings dated 22.10.2011 were kept in abeyance, since the issue of transferring properties of the Mutt to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams was pending with the Government; the writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to question the abeyance order dated 08.11.2011 whereby the allotment proceedings were kept in abeyance. Hence, the present writ petitions. 5. The respondent no.l filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the petitions inter alia contending that since the issue of handing over the Galigopuram Mutt to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam was pending consideration with the Government, the respondent no.2 cannot permit respondent no.l to lease out the sites and therefore, the allotment proceedings was kept in abeyance, hence, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in doing so. That the writ petitions were meritless and liable to be dismissed. 6. The respondent no.4 filed counter-affidavit denying all the material averments inter alia contending that as per G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 16.09.2005, the sites covered under allotment proceedings situate within ^C3 3(CJ .WA.J\fos.408 el 430 of2025 30 meters from the centre of the pathway to Tirumala from Tirupathi, belongs to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, therefore, the respondent no.2 has right to lease out the same, moreover on nomination basis without conducting any public auction. Hence, the allotment proceeding is null and void and the same does not bind respondent no.4. The writ petitions being meritless are liable to be dismissed. no 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material available on record, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to implement the allotment proceedings issued by respondent no.2, dated 22.10.2021, and allot open space specified in the said proceedings. as 8. Aggrieved thereby, Sri Gali Gopuram Mutt @ Vikunta Kovil, rep. by its fit person, who was arrayed as respondent no.5 in both the writ petitions, preferred these writ appeals. 9. Heard Sn P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, for Sri K .VS. Vishnuram, learned counsel for appellant/Mutt, Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for writ petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. 10. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for appellants, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavits filed in writ petitions and grounds of .^A.%OS.408 430 of2025 5 appeals would contend that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since the lease period mentioned in the allotment proceedings stood lapsed long ago and no rights whatsoever accrued on the writ petitioners to seek enforcement. He would further contend that since the subject property belongs to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, the Commissioner of Endowments has no authority or jurisdiction to grant lease of the properties. He would further contend that since the issue of handing over properties of the Mutt to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is pending with the Government, the respondent no.2, who is competent authority to oversee the administration of all Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, kept the allotment proceedings in abeyance. The said orders require no interference, however, the learned single Judge, upon misconception of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petitions. Therefore, the orders impugned in these writ appeals are liable to be set aside and the writ petitions be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeals. 11. Whereas, the learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, while reiterating the contentions raised by learned counsel for appellant, would contend that since the subject site belongs to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, the Endowments Department has no right to lease out .WJIM0S.4OS ^ 430 of2025 fi- 6 the same that too on nomination basis. Therefore, the abeyance order does not require any interference of this Court. However, the learned single Judge upon misconception of facts of the case allowed the writ petitions and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeals. 12. Per contra, Sr/ S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for writ petitioners, while justifying the orders of the learned single Judge contended that the open space belonging to Mutt was leased out by respondent no.2 on the recommendation of fit person to similarly situated persons and thus the contention of the appellant that since the subject land belongs to TTD the same cannot be leased out other than in public auction, is unsustainable. He would further contend that the learned single Judge upon meticulous analysis of the facts of the case and material placed on record rightly came to the conclusion in allowing the writ petitions by common order and the same does not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeals. 13. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ^CJ ‘RCO .W^Mos.408 eX 430 of2025 f- 14. The allotment proceedings dated 22.10.2011 issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, would indicate that on the request made by the Executive Authority of the Subject Mutt to extend the period of lease in favour of the sitting lessees, as it is not possible to conduct public auction as non-Hindus will also participate therein, the allotment proceedings came to the issued extending the period of lease by another three(03) years from the date of handing over of vacant site admeasuring 15 x 15 sq.ft, on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, with a condition of depositing six (06) months' rent in advance. 15. The impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2011 whereby the above said allotment proceedings was kept in abeyance mentions that a detailed report was submitted to the Government for handing over the subject Mutt along with its properties, both movable and immovable, and man power to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and orders were awaited and until receipt of orders, the Endowments Department cannot permit the competent authorities for leasing out the sites situated at foot path way to Tirumala other than by way of public auction. 16. It is also the specific contention raised in the grounds of appeal and vociferous argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that ^C3 ^3 .WJl.^fosAOS q.3 430 of2025 . 8 the property belongs to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and hence the Endowments Department cannot lease out the properties. 17. The contention of the writ petitioners that to the persons similarly situated as that of the petitioners, the Endowments Department granted lease of vacant site of similar dimensions that too in the same location, has not been denied by any of the respondents including the Mutt. The proceedings dated 15.10.2012 issued by Endowments Department is to the effect the endowments department allotted vacant sites to several other individuals similarly situated to that of the petitioners. Hence, the said proceedings fortifies the contention of the writ petitioners that the sites belongs to the Matt are being leased out by the Endowments Department on nomination basis, but not by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam by conducting public auction. It is also relevant here to note that the said proceedings are subsequent to the allotment proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the specific contention raised by appellant/Mutt that since the land belongs to TTD, the Endowment Department cannot lease out the property other than by way of public auction does not hold any water and the same has to be rejected. 18. It is curious enough to note that Endowments Department, who had issued the allotment proceedings and who later kept the said allotment ‘.WJ.Wbs.40S ei 430 of2025 9 proceedings in abeyance, did not choose to prefer any appeal. The proceedings extending lease to similarly situated persons is subsequent to issuance of subject allotment proceedings and also the proceedings keeping the said allotment proceedings in abeyance. 19. The reason given for keeping the allotment proceedings in abeyance is that the issue regarding handing over of the movable and immovable properties and man power of the subject Mutt to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is pending with the Government and until the said issue was resolved, the site cannot be leased out. More than fourteen (14) years have elapsed since the date of issuance of the proceedings whereby the allotment proceedings was kept in abeyance. Till now the issue regarding amalgamation of Mutt with TTD has not been resolved. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of this Court that assailing G.O.Ms.No.231, dated 30.03.2015 issued by the Government for handing over the Mutt along with manpower and properties, Adhikari of the subject Mutt filed writ petition vide W.P.No.l0356 of 2015 before this Court and there was interim suspension of the impugned G.O. 20. The allotment proceedings were issued in the year 2011. Therefore, the period of lease of three (03) years mentioned therein presumably related to the period 2011 to 2014. As of now, nearly eleven (11) years stood elapsed since the expiry of the period of lease. Therefore, the learned counsel for the .WATios.m 430 of2025 • 10 appellant is right in contending that since the period of lease stood expired long ago, the writ petitioners are not entitled to seek implementation of the allotment proceedings. 21. The learned single Judge did not consider the fact that the period of lease granted through the allotment proceedings stood expired long back and hence the authorities cannot be directed to enforce the allotment proceedings. 22. However, the specific contention of the writ petitioners that their parents carried business in the subject site since about 35 to 40 years and after their lifetime, they are continuing the same businesses, was neither contradicted nor refuted. Further the allotment proceedings specifically states that executive authority of the Mutt requested to extend the lease period in favour of sitting lessees and therefore the lease period was extended for another three years. 23. In view of the above, this Court, in order to meet ends of justice, feels it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the authorities for seeking extension of the period of lease and on such an application being made, the endowment authorities shall consider the issue of grant of lease on the same analogy that was applied to the similarly situated persons. ^CJ .WA.?ios.408 ei 430 of2025 r 11 24. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments / Fit Person, Galigopuram Mattam (Namala Gopuram), Chinnabazaaru Veedhi Tirupati Town, Chittoor District. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. 3. The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue (Endowments) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. 4. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devsthanams, , Tirupathi, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to Sri K. V. S. Vishnuram, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, SC for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri S. S. Bhatt, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA Ns. 408 and 430 OF 2025 It Mi W5 lO ^ ^ . Current Secnon ^"7 09 ^^spatcw^- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS