APHC010421832026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1000 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- [3584] Sri Avadutendra Gnana Mandir, ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Reserved for orders on : 20.08.2026 Pronounced on : 18.9.2026 Whether only operative part : of the judgment is pronounced or whether full judgment is pronounced Full CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th September, 2026 Present : Advocate for Appellant: Mr. J. V. Phaniduth appearing vice Mr. P Rajasekhar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, Senior Counsel with Ms.V Himabindu – R4 GP for Endowments – R1 to R3 LISA GILL, CJ. Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside order dated 06.07.2026 passed by learned Single Bench whereby writ petition filed by present appellant has been dismissed. 2 WA_1000_2026 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of case are that W.P. No. 6157 of 2026 was filed by present appellant for setting aside notice dated 31.01.2026 issued by respondent No.4 under section 83(2) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, as amended in year 2023 (for short, „Endowments Act‟). 3. Appellant/writ petitioner vide said notice dated 31.01.2026 had been called upon to explain its possession over land as described in writ petition or to vacate scheduled premises failing which, appropriate action, it is stated, would be taken under Section 83 of amended Act for taking over possession. It is pleaded that petitioner institution consists of a meditation hall built in memory of Sri Avadutendra Swami, who, it is stated, used to disseminate his teachings at existing gnana mandir, which is referred to be schedule property. 4. Consequent to his attaining salvation on 10.04.1978, he was buried on same premises, which can now be termed as „Samadhi‟, which comes under definition of a Mutt under provisions of Endowments Act. Property in question had been given by 4th respondent - Yadalla Pitchaiah Chetty Charities Association to be used by Sri Avadhutendra Swami. Property was being enjoyed without any let or hindrance and property has been used after his death as well. Gyan Mandir was registered with Registrar of Societies, Kadapa, in the year 1978. 3 WA_1000_2026 5. It is further pleaded that in year 2018, proceedings for eviction were initiated by respondent No.4 against writ petitioner before Endowments Tribunal at Amravati – Pedakakani, i.e., O.A. No. 517 of 2018. Counter affidavit had been duly filed by petitioner therein. Pleadings were complete and when O.A. was posted for evidence of 1st applicant in O.A. (i.e., respondent No.4 in present with petition), an application was filed on 09.12.2025 seeking permission to withdraw O.A. with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in terms of Section 83(2) of amended Act. This was opposed by writ petitioner, however, Tribunal vide order dated 21.01.2026 permitted withdrawal of O.A. by granting liberty to petitioner and another to proceed according to law. Pursuant thereto, impugned notice dated 31.01.2026 was issued by 4th respondent. 6. Aggrieved therefrom, W.P. No.6157 of 2026 was filed by writ petitioner with averments that first and foremost once proceedings had been withdrawn before Endowments Tribunal, initiation of fresh proceedings is not permissible under amended provisions, as said amended Act cannot be made retrospective in application. Furthermore, notice, if at all, could have been issued by Executive Officer of charitable or religious institution or Endowment or Assistant Commissioner or any other authority higher in rank. Therefore, notice issued by 4th respondent, it was contended, was totally without any jurisdiction. 4 WA_1000_2026 7. Learned writ Court, on considering facts and circumstances, found no merit in said contentions and dismissed writ petition. It is specifically held by learned Single Bench that while carrying out amendment in the provisions of Endowments Act, Sections 84 to 86 of Act were completely omitted and certain additions were made to Section 83 thereof. Writ petitioner did not challenge validity of said amended provisions whereas respondents withdrew Original Application taking advantage of these changes with liberty to take action in terms of said amended provisions. It is further noted that no vested right had accrued to present writ petitioner. It was further held that in terms of first proviso to Section 29 of Endowments Act, notice issued by respondent No.4 was in order. Aggrieved of above said order dated 06.07.2026, present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that amendment carried out to Section 83 of Endowments Act is prospective in nature, therefore, cannot have any effect on pending OAs. Said provision in fact gives authority to a person to decide his own case, therefore, is in any case unjustified. It was further submitted that at time of withdrawal of O.A. on 21.01.2026, proper hearing was not even afforded to writ petitioner, though it is not denied that a counter was admittedly filed by writ petitioner to said application. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, at this stage, had interjected to submit that full opportunity of hearing was afforded. 5 WA_1000_2026 9. In view of arguments as advanced, learned counsel for appellant prayed that present appeal be allowed, impugned order dated 06.07.2026 be set aside as well as notice dated 31.01.2026, and writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 10. Learned counsel for respondents have opposed this appeal. While supporting impugned order dated 06.07.2026, learned counsel for respondent No.4 argued that previous proceedings i.e., O.A. No. 517 of 2018 were filed under unamended Section 83, which admittedly is not enforceable any longer. A totally new and comprehensive Section 83 has been enacted and that there is a total substitution of old Sections while deleting Sections 84 to 86, which earlier were clearly interdependent. Thus, proceedings initiated earlier as per old provisions cannot be continued in view of repeal of above said Sections. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submitted that procedure for execution of an order passed under earlier Section 84 of Act was also repealed, therefore, even if it is presumed that an order is passed under erstwhile Act, it necessarily cannot be executed under present provisions. 12. Moreover, specific liberty was afforded to respondents to withdraw O.A. No.517 of 2018 on 21.01.2026. This order was never challenged by writ petitioner. It was also asserted by learned counsel for respondent No.4 6 WA_1000_2026 that said institution is an exempted institution by way of notification under Section 154 of Endowments Act i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1098, dated 11.09.2008. Therefore, trustee or any other person is entitled to discharge functions of Executive Officer. Reference was also made to first proviso to Section 29 of Endowments Act. Dismissal of appeal was thus sought. 13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file carefully. 14. At the outset, it is to be noted that unamended Section 83 of Endowments Act dealing with encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment besides eviction of encroachers provided that where Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction either suo motu or upon a complaint made by trustee had reason to believe that any person had encroached upon any land, building, tank, well, spring or water-course or any space belonging to institution or endowment, the same would be reported to Endowments Tribunal along with relevant particulars, thereafter Endowments Tribunal, on finding a prima facie case of encroachment, would take necessary steps of issuance of notice, etc,. 15. Section 84 of unamended Act provided the mode of eviction on failure of removal of encroachments as directed by Endowments Tribunal. Section 85 thereof provided that where Deputy Commissioner knew or had 7 WA_1000_2026 reason to believe that a group or groups of persons without any entitlement and with common object of occupying any land, which is property belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment, were occupying or having occupied such land did not vacate the land on demand by Deputy Commissioner or on any other officer authorized by him on this behalf, he would submit an application to Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area and that when a question arises as to whether any land is the property of a charitable or religious institution, such land shall be presumed to be property of charitable or religious institution or endowment till proved to the contrary. Order of eviction passed by Endowments Tribunal was described to be final not questionable before any Court of law. 16. Section 86 provided for penalty of offenses in connection with encroachment. Vide amendment Act in 2023, Sections 84, 85 and 86 were completely omitted and Section 83 was substituted as under: “83.Encroachment of land, building, or any property belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroacher, (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the encroachment of land, building, or any property of a charitable or religious institution or endowment is prohibited. (2) The Executive Officer of the Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment or the Assistant Commissioner or any authority higher in rank thereof, shall, by notice, require the encroacher to remove the encroachment as hereinafter provided. 8 WA_1000_2026 Provided that the encroacher shall be entitled to submit reply/ explanation to such notice within one week from the date of receipt of such notice, which shall be duly considered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed, - (a) either withdrawing the notice issued and dropping further proceedings; or (b) affirming the notice and duly stipulating the time within which such encroachment shall be removed. (3) If the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment within such stipulated period, the authority who issued the notice shall remove the encroachment with police assistance, if necessary and recover the cost of removal from the encroacher. (4) For the purposes of securing police assistance, the authority concerned shall approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police who shall thereupon provide such police assistance as is deemed necessary for the removal of encroachment. (5) Any act of encroachment including the attempt to encroach shall be a cognizable offence, non-bailable and triable as a warrant case, in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to eight years and with fine which may extend to Rupees one lakh. Explanation: (i) For the purpose of this Chapter the expression 'encroachment‟ means every activity by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally take possession of lands, buildings or property of an endowment institution: (a) Occupy the said lands buildings or property, without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease/ mortgage/ license, or continued occupation of land buildings or property after the expiry or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence or permission in respect thereof. (b) enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences, agreement or any illegal document of title in respect of such property. (c) Construct un-authorised structures thereon for sale or hire or for his/her own use and includes an attempt to encroach in the manner indicated above. (ii) The term encroacher shall be construed accordingly. (iii) This shall be in addition to the provisions herein above contained empowering the removal of encroachment in the manner provided in this section. 9 WA_1000_2026 (6) Any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority under sub-section (2) above shall have a right of appeal to the Endowments Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said orders (7) During the pendency of the appeal, the Endowment Tribunal is competent to pass such interim orders in the interests of justice including any direction to the encroacher to deposit such amount, either as rentals or otherwise, as may be specified by it in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question. (8) if any encroacher fails to remove the encroachment, within such stipulated period mentioned in the eviction orders already passed by Endowments Tribunal, the Executive Authority of the Institution or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the District shall remove the encroachment with such police assistance, if necessary and recover the cost of removal from the encroacher.” 17. The amendment/substitution/deletion carried out in Endowments Act in 2023 was admittedly never challenged by petitioner. Ground raised by writ petitioner was that after withdrawal of O.A., notice dated 31.01.2026 could not have been issued notwithstanding the fact that O.A. No.517 of 2018 was permitted to be withdrawn on 21.01.2026, with liberty to petitioners therein to proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for appellant was unable to point out any provision or any material on record which prohibited issuance of notice dated 31.01.2026. 18. In the given facts and circumstances, learned Single Bench correctly held that there is no right which had vested in the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case of any vested right being nullified by amendment in question. There is merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for respondents that it is a totally different methodology which has now been 10 WA_1000_2026 provided after amendment in 2023 and there is no bar to respondents from taking action for eviction of writ petitioner from the premises. 19. In respect to argument regarding ineligibility of person issuing notice dated 31.01.2026 is concerned, learned Single Bench has again correctly referred to first proviso to Section 29 of Endowments Act, which provides that where there is no Executive Officer in respect of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, the Trustee or Chairman of Board of Trustees, or any employee of an institution or endowment where its income exceeds Rs.2 lakhs but is less than Rs.25 lakhs per annum, duly authorized by Commissioner in this behalf shall exercise powers and perform the functions and discharge duties of an Executive Officer. 20. In the present case, institution, it has been found, had an annual income of about Rs.22 lakhs per annum and that a member of founder family had indeed been appointed to manage affairs of 4th respondent, who is thus an Executive Officer for all practical purposes under Endowments Act. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, there is no jurisdictional question which arises for consideration in this matter. Learned Single Bench has correctly dismissed writ petition filed by present appellant challenging issuance of notice dated 31.01.2026. In case writ petitioner is aggrieved of any order passed in said proceedings, writ petitioner is entitled to avail remedy of appeal as provided under the Act. 11 WA_1000_2026 21. Learned counsel for appellant was unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in impugned order dated 06.07.2026 passed by learned Single Bench, which calls for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 22. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. LISA GILL, CJ Date:18.09.2026 CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn Uploaded on : 18.09.2026 Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether the order is Reportable : Yes/No