V RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/2355/2026 · 2026-08-09
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8227 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8227 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010038972026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2355 of 2026 Between:
1. V RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O NARASIMHA RAO (LATE) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 4-3-107/2, IN EASTERN CHOULTRY, BAPATIA, BAPATIA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522237
2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 520012
3. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, BAPATIA, BAPATIA DISTRICT522101
4. THE EASTERN CHOULTRY, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 522101
...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 to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners house property bearing D.No.4-3-107(2) admeasuring 20 cents in Sy.No. 656 in Eastern Choultry of Bapatia Town, Mandal and District as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without Jurisdiction violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the
2
respondents to not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioners house property bearing D.No.4-3-107(2) admeasuring 20 cents in Sy.No. 656 in Eastern Choultry of Bapatia Town, Mandal and District.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D V SASIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region.
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2355 of 2026
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"…..to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners house property bearing D.No.4-3-107(2) admeasuring 20 cents in Sy.No.656 in Eastern Choultry of Bapatla Town, Mandal and District as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house property bearing D.No.4-3-107(2) admeasuring 20 cents in Sy.No.656 in Eastern Choultry of Bapatla Town, Mandal and District and pass such other orders……."
2. A short point involved in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents cannot evict the petitioner from house property bearing D.No.4-3-107(2) admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.656 in Eastern Choultry of Bapatla Town, Mandal and District, unless the O.A.No.617
4
of 2012 that filed by the respondents withdraw and issue fresh notice, as provided under the provisions of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act 30 of 1987’).
3.
Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not in possession of the property according to the certificate dated 08.08.1987 issued by the Executive Officer. 4. The contention is that the respondent temple filed an Original Application (O.A.) for the eviction of the petitioner from the house property bearing D.No.4-3-107(2) admeasuring Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.656 in Eastern Choultary and is now attempting to evict the petitioner by invoking the of Bapatla Town and Mandal provisions of the Act 30 of 1987, particularly under Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987. The respondents cannot invoke two parallel proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to either proceed with the O.A. or withdraw the O.A. and issue a notice under the Endowments Act for the eviction of the petitioner. 5. Thus, the subject matter before both the Endowments Tribunal is for eviction. According to the petitioner, the temple authority intended to issue notice under Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987, cause of action is the same before two forums, the temple authority cannot be allowed to
5
travel in two boats simultaneously availing two parallel proceedings for eviction pursuant to the amendment made to Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987 at the same time. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra (Dead) Vs. Chandadevi & Sons(P) Ltd. Co. & Ors. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 335, in para-No.5, has held as under:-
"5. In our opinion, it is not necessary to permit two parallel proceedings being pursued at the instance of the same person. Hence, we direct this appeal to be treated as disposed of and the interim orders dated 24-12-2003 and 16-1-2004 passed by this court to remain in operation till the High Court has heard and decided the application dated 18-12-2003 filed by the appellant herein who is Respondent 6 in the High Court."
7. Therefore, the respondents are directed either to withdraw the O.A.No.617 of 2012 filed by them, thereafter issue notice to the petitioner herein following provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 for eviction of the writ petitioner.
If at all, the respondents are intended to proceed with the O.A., the Tribunal is directed to make an endeavour for expeditious disposal of the O.A., preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6
8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 10.08.2026
siva
7
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2355 of 2026
Date: 10.08.2026
siva