Disposed

D.Umamaheswari, W/o.Ramakoti, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2024WP/11177/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition over disputed title to 222 sq yds of land claimed by a temple. Court disposed of the matter directing either party to approach the Endowments Tribunal via applications within two months for decision within four weeks, and restrained temple authorities from interfering with possession meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach Endowments Tribunal within two months; tribunal to decide within four weeks; no interference by temple authorities with petitioners' possession till then; no costs.

D.Umamaheswari, W/o.Ramakoti, Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

APHC010089722015

[3310]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 11177/2015

¶10

Between:

¶11

D.umamaheswari, W/o.ramakoti, and Others

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶17

1.V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC)

¶20

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶21

3.E SAMBASIVA PRATAP

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

¶25

the following relief:

¶26

“…. issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in unilaterally treating the private land of the petitioners an extent of 222 sq yds of land 111 sq yds belonging to each petitioner in Survey No 186/3 Plot No 4 of Adavivaram Village Visakhapantam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District as belonging to the 2nd respondent temple and in interfering with the peaceful

¶27

¶28

possession and enjoyment thereof as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction violative of Articles 14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refrain from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and pass…..”

¶29

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 111 sy yds of land and the 2^nd peittioenr is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 111 sq yds of land (total 222 sq yds.) covered by Plot No.4) in Survey No.186/3 of approved layout, covered by permission of Gram Panchayat, Adavivaram vide P.R No.27 dated 30.06.1971. the 1^st petitioner purchased her extent under a registered sale deed vide Document No.317 of 2014 dated 24.02.2014. In the Survey and Settlement Register, the subject land in Survey Nos.186/3 of Adavivaram Village was shown as “Inam” and the name of the Inamdar/Pattadar is shown as Nunna Tirumala Krishnamacharyulu. The same was not endowed or granted in favour of the 2^nd respondent temple. It is stated that no notices at any point of item were issued to the petitioner or to his predecessors under the provisions of the said statute. Even though the 2^nd respondent temple having no manner of claim over the lands in the said Sy.No.204/1 and 205 of Adavivaram Village, the 2^nd respondent temple authorities are frequently interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property without following due process of law.

¶30

Heard Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

¶31

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in all the petitions, submits that, in similar circumstances, a

¶32

¶33

learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.29773 of 2018, dated 05.05.2023 and in WP No.26301 of 2023, dated 02.07.2024, while disposing of the writ petitions granting liberty to the 2^nd respondent temple to approach the Endowments Tribunal for redressal of their grievance with regard to title over subject lands and further directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land till the decision is taken by the Endowments Tribunal. He also relied upon a decision of a learned Division Bench of this Court passed in WA No.815 of 2022, dated 04.05.2023, wherein, it was also while disposing of the writ appeal directed the appellant therein to prefer an appeal under Section 45 read with Section 87 of Act No.30 of 1987. In view of the same, learned counsel requests this Court to pass similar order in these writ petitions also.

¶34

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Endowments does not refute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶35

As seen from the material on record, there is a serious dispute in between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent temple with regard to the tile over the subject lands.

¶36

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and on a perusal of the decisions of learned Single Judge and well as learned Division Bench of this Court as stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that, either of the parties have to approach the Endowments Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. Therefore, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition, with the following directions :

¶37

¶38

i) granting liberty to either of the parties i.e., the writ petitioner as well as the respondent temple authorities to approach the Endowments Tribunal by way of filing Interlocutory Applications as well as Original Applications for redressal of their grievance, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

ii) On filing such applications, the Endowments Tribunal shall decide the same on merits within four (04) weeks thereafter;

¶40

iii) Further, the respondent temple authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject lands till disposal of the said Interlocutory Applications.

¶41