APHC010480952021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28884/2021 BETWEEN: 1. GOLLAPALLI VENKATA RAMANA, S/o.APPANNA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.HANUMAN NAGAR, VENKATAPURAM PANCHAYAT, ELURU RURAL MANDAL, W.G.DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST. A.P., 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNNA DIST.A.P., 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, KAKINA 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT NEAR VASANTHA MAHAL, ELURU,W.G.DIST,A.P. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER VAINATHESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE PONANGI, ELURU MANDAL ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, C/O 0/0 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NEAR VASANTHA MAHAL,ELURU, W.G.DIST,A.P., IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28884/2021 GOLLAPALLI VENKATA RAMANA, S/o.APPANNA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.HANUMAN NAGAR, VENKATAPURAM PANCHAYAT, ELURU RURAL MANDAL, W.G.DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE-ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNNA DIST.A.P., THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST. A.P., THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT NEAR VASANTHA MAHAL, ELURU,W.G.DIST,A.P. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER VAINATHESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE PONANGI, ELURU MANDAL ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, C/O 0/0 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NEAR VASANTHA MAHAL,ELURU, W.G.DIST,A.P., ...RESPONDENT(S): [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO GOLLAPALLI VENKATA RAMANA, S/o.APPANNA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.HANUMAN NAGAR, VENKATAPURAM PANCHAYAT, ELURU RURAL ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT NEAR VASANTHA MAHAL, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER VAINATHESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE PONANGI, ELURU MANDAL ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, C/O 0/0 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NEAR ...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 pass an order or Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to evict petitioner from his fish tank forcibly admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated in R.S.Nos.224/ 1, 224/2 of Ponangi Village, Eluru Mandal, W.G.Dist., without following due process of law as unjust, illegal, arbitrary besides violation of principals of natural justice and Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the above said land in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C VENKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. PULIPATI RADHIKA The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in RS No.224/1, 224/2 of Ponnangi village, Eluru Mandal, on the ground that the aforesaid survey number land was purchased under registered sale deed dated 17.07.2008 under document No.4595 of 2008 from one Karri Padmavathi, W/o. Sathi Veerireddy and the respondent authorities have mutated the names in the revenue records and the respondents are not having any right title over the property, they cannot dispossess the petitioner, without adhering to the procedure. If the respondents dispute the title of the petitioner herein, they should have followed the procedure under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred as Act 30 of 1987). Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge this Court to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law and placed reliance on the order in the case of Ippili Sanyasamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Guntur District and others, wherein, this Court observed at paragraph 9 in the following: A procedure is envisaged under Section 83(2) of the Act No.30 of 1987 for removal of encroachments. The Executive Officer of 4 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 encroachments. The encroacher is also entitled to submit reply/explanation to such notice within one week from the date of receipt of such notice and after submitting such explanation by the encroacher, the authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders. And it is further observed that under Section 83(6) of the Act No.30 of 1987, any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority under Section 83(2) of the Act No.30 of 1987, shall have a right of appeal to the Endowments Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said orders. As a procedure has been outlined in Section 83 of the Act No.30 of 1987 for removal of the encroachments, the respondent authority cannot forcibly evict the petitioner from the subject land. Accordingly, the writ petition therein was disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from the subject property without following the procedure as stipulated under Section 83 of the Act No.30 of 1987. 2. Now, the counsel for the petitioner requested that similar order may be granted in the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject property. A panchanama 5 was conducted on 26.04.2021 and the possession was taken and therefore, the question of issuing a notice under Section 83(2) of Act No.30 of 1987 does not arise and also further stated as directed by this Court in its order dated 09.02.2026 in W.P. No.3646 of 2026, the petitioner herein has filed appeal before the Endowment Tribunal, concerning to an extent of Ac.0-42 cents relating to one of the survey number above referred. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the judgment relied by the petitioner is inapplicable to the present facts of the case. 4. Refuting the contention raised by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's signature is absent from the possession certificate dated 26.04.2021. Furthermore, the possession taken was merely symbolic, and the petitioner remains in actual physical possession of the property. Consequently, it is prayed that the respondents be directed not to evict the petitioner without following due process of law. 5. Demurring to the contention raised by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no signature of the petitioner on the possession certificate dated 26.04.2021. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the possession taken by the respondents was merely a symbolic possession and the petitioner remains in physical possession of the property. Therefore, prayed to 6 direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner without following due process of law. 6. As rightly, argued by the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner’s signature is absent on the possession delivery certificate dated 26.04.2021. It is discernible that the certificate was prepared by the respondents and this court vide order dated 08.12.2021 directed the respondents to maintain ‘status quo’ this Court presumes that the petitioner continued to remain in possession. The respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner, much less do so forcibly. 7. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law as outlined under Section 83(2) of Act No.30 of 1987, before evicting the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 18.09.2026 Harin 7 90 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 28884 OF 2021 Date: 18-09-2026 Harin