APHC010147252026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7701/2026 Between: 1. ARCHAKAM LOKANATHAM, S/O. LATE CHINNA RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC HEREDITARY ARCHAKA OF SRI VALEESWARASWAMY TEMPLE, BALASAMUDRAM, H/O. R.NADIMPALLE, RAMASAMUDRAM REVENUE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 517417. 2. . ARCHAKAM LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. LATE ARCHAKAM LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-40/A, BALLASAMUDRAM, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, NADIMPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 517417. 3. R.VANESH KUMAR, S/O. R.PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D.NO.3-14, BALLASAMUDRAM, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, NADIMPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 517417. 4. R.MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE CHANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-9-1, BALLASAMUDRAM, NADIMPALLE, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517417 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, A.P. - 521225. 2 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, A.P. - 521225. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORENDOWMENT, MADANAPALLI, ANAMMAYYA DISTRICT - 517325. 5. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269. 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VALEESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, BALLASAMUDRAM, R. NADIMPALLE, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517417. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 5 issued impugned letter vide index no. A1/2/2026, dated 08.03.2026 by giving direction to vacate houses of the Petitioners who stayed and protected the temple lands prior to 1951 and by disobeying the directions of the Respondents no.2 and 3 as illegal, irregular and unjust and violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 not demolish the Petitioners houses who having possession prior to 1951 in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 not demolish and interfere into the Petitioners’ house basing the impugned letter vide index no. A1/2/2026, dated 08.03.2026, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7701/2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “ to issue a Writ, Order particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 issued impugned letter vide index No.A1/2/2026, dated 08.03.2026 by giving direction to vacate houses of the petitioners who stayed and protected the temple lands prior to 1951 and by disobeying the directions of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as illegal, irregular and unjust and violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondent No.5 not to demolish the petitioners’ houses who having possession prior to 1951 in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit in the circumstance of the case….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.5 addressed a letter dated 08.03.2026 to the Executive Officer and others proposing action for removal of unauthorized occupation/encroachments. Pursuant to the final order, notices which were issued to the petitioner under Section 83(2) of the Act No.30 of 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to the notices issued by respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioners had submitted their explanation stating that the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since decades together 5 being Archakas of the said temple and they were given subject land for rendering their Archakathvam and they did not construct any house thereon. By virtue of the explanation submitted by the petitioners, considering the same, the authority concerned passed final order under Section 83(3) of the Act, 1987 on 30.06.2025 for eviction. The said final order was assailed by way of statutory appeal under section 83(6) of the Act, 1987and the same is pending for consideration before the tribunal. While the matter is pending for consideration before the tribunal, without waiting for some more time i.e., till disposal of the OA, the respondents are trying to evict the petitioners from the subject land. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader furnished written instructions dated 17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.5 herein wherein it is stated that the petitioners are encroachers of the lands belonging to the subject temple. Hence, eviction notice and final orders were issued under Section 83(2) of the Act, 1987. The petitioners having filed the Original Application (OA) before the tribunal, they cannot invoke jurisdiction for same relief by way of writ petition under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the petitioners herein are keep on filing writ petitions one after another for the same relief and in respect of the same land which are pending before the tribunal for adjudication of the disputes, but still canvassing one way or other to stall the proceeding which may be issued by the respondents. He further submits that the impugned notice is neither addressed to the petitioners nor is related to the property as claimed by the 6 petitioners. The alleged impugned proceedings are the correspondence between the authorities for taking steps and to protect the lands of the respondent No.6 temple. If any action is proposed against the petitioners in respects of the subject property, the respondent authorities would follow due process and in the earlier occasion the petitioners were issued with notices and they submitted explanation and final orders were already passed. The same was challenged by way of statutory appeal. If any consequential action is proposed pursuant to the final orders, the petitioners herein are at liberty to move appropriate application before the tribunal for redressal of the same. He further submits that on the guise of the Archakatvam the petitioners occupied Ac.0.55 cents of land and got constructed house as a Mahal and claiming rights over the property against the temple. 5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the alleged impugned notice dated 08.03.2026 it is observed that the said notice is neither addressed to the petitioners nor in respect of the property claimed by the petitioners. The impugned notice is only for proposed actions between the authorities i.e., how to be removed the encroachments in respect of endowment properties in general, who are not approached the tribunal and the encroachers who already approached the tribunal pursuant to the final orders passed by the respondents dated 30.06.2025. It is an admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioners assailed final order dated 30.06.2025 by way of statutory appeal before the tribunal and the same is pending for consideration. If any consequential action 7 pursuant to the final order, the petitioners are entitled to move appropriate application before the tribunal and can get appropriate orders to protect the property of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is settled law, no person can avail two remedies for the same relief by initiating parallel proceedings before two judicial forums. In the case in hand, the petitioner already invoked the jurisdiction by way of statutory appeal, which is pending and if any consequential action of the respondents would be assailed by way of filing interlocutory application before the tribunal, but cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and cannot invite different orders from the different jurisidctions for the same relief in respect of same property. 6. In view of the reasons stated above, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application before the tribunal, if the respondents are trying to demolish the subject property pending the O.A. As observed above, the impugned notice is not addressed to the petitioner. Even as per the proceedings dated 10.02.2026 issued by respondent No.2 it is observed that since the matters are pending before the tribunal, no further orders can be passed as requested by the petitioners. In view of the specific finding/proceedings issued by respondent No.2, if any notice was issued, the petitioners are entitled to approach the tribunal by filing appropriate application. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, if the respondents intend to take any action for eviction, the petitioners should be 8 informed the same and provide opportunity to approach tribunal to make application for adjudication. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2026 TPS 9 214 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7701/2026 Date:18.03.2026 TPS