::1:: APHC010101752009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2063/2009 Between: 1. SMT. BADIREDDY RAJESWARI,, W/O. B. SATYA SAMUDRUDU, EMPLOYEE, 38-1-15/1, MARRIPALEM VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. G. DHRUVATAR,, S/O. LATE G. SOMESWARA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 5-60, PLOT NO. 47, VEPAGUNTA (PO), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, REP.B YITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the ::2:: High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Land of the 1st Petitioner (an extent of 844 Sq. Yds. ) and of the 2nd petitioner (an extent of 200 Sq. Yds.), situated in Sy.no. 24/3D2, Varalakshmi Nagar, Cheemalapally Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without initiating any proceedings known to law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refrain from doing so and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.2063 of 2009 This Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Land of the 1st Petitioner (an extent of 844 Sq. Yds. ) and of the 2nd petitioner (an extent of 200 Sq. Yds.), situated in Sy. No. 24/3D2, Varalakshmi Nagar, Cheemalapally Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without initiating any proceedings known to law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refrain from doing so and pass” 2. Learned counsel or the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 844 Sq. Yds of land situated in Sy.No.24/3D2, Varalakshmi Nagar, Cheemalapally Village, Pendurthy mandal, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same under Regd. Sale Deed dated 07.10.1992 (Document No.1556/1992) and the said land is purely private land, which is classified as “Zeroyati” in the Revenue ::4:: Records. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 200 Sq. Yds of land situated in Sy.No.24/3D2, Varalakshmi Nagar, Cheemalapally Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same under Regd. Sale Deed dated 20.12.2008 (Document No.2146/08) and since they the 2nd petitioner has been in occupation continuously and the land in question is purely private land, which is classified as “Zeroyati” in the Revenue Records. 3. While things stood thus, the 2nd Respondent visited petitioners’ land and proclaimed that the said lands belonged to the Temple. No notice of any nature was issued to the petitioners and no proceedings known to law, have been initiated by the 2nd Respondent, in relation to the land belonging to the petitioners. The official respondents orally directed the petitioners to deliver possession of the same and petitioners able to protect their possession with much difficulty. The action of the 2nd respondent in unilaterally proclaiming “Zeroyati” land, which is private land to be land as belonging to the temple and in interfering with petitioners’ possession of respective extents of land, is illegal, arbitrary and totally without jurisdiction. Hence the Writ Petition. ::5:: 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Temple and perused the material placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner furnished judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.30192/2023, dated 23.06.2024 wherein it is held thus: “4.Learned counsel for the petitioner furnished a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17359 of 2008, dated 21.10.2021. In the above said order, this Court has given a specific finding that the entire land in Survey No.24 of Cheemalapalli Village was categorized as “Zeroyati” land and not an “Inam” land. So far as the subject land of the petitioner is concerned, it is also part and parcel of the Survey No.24 of Cheemalapalli Village, which is a “Zeroyati” land, but not an “Inam” land. Hence, in those circumstances, the 2nd respondent cannot interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.” 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject land. If the 2nd respondent- temple has any grievance over the title of the said property, it can approach Endowment Tribunal seeking the relief under Section 83(2) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious ::6:: Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Till such time, the 2nd respondent shall not disturb the possession of the petitioners over the said land. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 16.02.2026 krk ::7:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.2063 of 2009 DT: 16.02.2026 krk 100