Dismissed

K G Sugadhan v. Sri Nageswaraswamy Devastanam

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2019WP/12111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging an eviction notice. The court held that since statutory proceedings for recovery of possession are pending before the A.P Endowments Tribunal, no further direction is warranted under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no new direction issued given the pendency of proceedings before the statutory authority.

K G Sugadhan Vs Sri Nageswaraswamy Devastanam — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.12111 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, to declare the undated notice issued by 1^st respondent and acknowledged by petitioner on 19.08.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner, that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of property, by paying monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- per month for the last 35 years and obtained receipts from the Executive Officer, Sri Nageswaraswamy Devastanam, Sullurupet, SPSR Nellore District. While the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, the undated notice issued by 1^st respondent and acknowledged by petitioner on 19.08.2019 was issued with a direction to evict the premises, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, with a threatened action to initiate proceedings under Section 83 (4) of A.P Charitable Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 2013. The notice is now challenged on the ground that it is illegal.

¶6

1^st respondent filed counter, denying the material allegations, while contending that the petitioner is continuing in unauthorized occupation and 1^st respondent collecting rent of Rs.3,000/- per month towards damage for use and occupation and thereby he is an encroacher as defined in explanation to Section 83 (1) of A.P Charitable Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30

¶7

wp_12111_ 2019

¶8

2 MSM, J

¶9

of 2013 and 1^st respondent initiated proceedings in O.A No.564 of 2019, subsequent to issuance of this notice and it is pending for disposal, before A.P Endowments Tribunal.

¶10

The Counsel for the petitioner Smt S Nanda contended that the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner forcibly under the guise of notice, acknowledged by the petitioner. But the notice specifically indicates the intention of 1^st respondent to file a petition under Section 83 (4) of A.P Charitable Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 2013 to evict the petitioner, as the petitioner is an encroacher, as defined in explanation to Section 83 (1) of of A.P Charitable Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 2013. Therefore, 1^st respondent never interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the property, initiated proceedings for recovery of possession, describing the petitioner as trespasser, as per the due process of law under Section 83 of A.P Charitable Hindu Religious Institution Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 2013. Hence, I find no ground to issue any direction, because of pendency of the petition before the statutory authority.

¶11

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶13

stand closed.

¶14

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶15

Dated 08.11.2019 Rvk

K G Sugadhan v. Sri Nageswaraswamy Devastanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K G Sugadhan v. Sri Nageswaraswamy Devastanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D Satishbabu Vs the State of Ap

Ts Marketing, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The West Godavari Dist. Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, Vs the State of Ap

P.Lakshmi Naidu Vs State of Ap

M/s, Indus Towers Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Bharathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh