Writ petition seeking removal of land from the prohibited properties list maintained for a temple. The court found a live title dispute between the parties and held that the remedy under Article 226 was not maintainable, dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Endowments Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER >0
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR P-.I 7
n
cl
rrl
PRESENT \ ; Cj/
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
I.A. No.1 of 2024
In/and
WRIT PETITION NO: 1876 OF 2022
WRIT PETITION NO: 1876 OF 2022
Between:
(Petitioners 2 and 3 are brought on record as L.R.stothedeceased sole Petitioner as per the Order of this Court, dt.21.11.2023vide order passed in I.A.1 of 2023)
...PETITIONERS
AND
V r r
r
(RR 9 to 12 are impleaded as per the Court Order dt.22.10.2024vide orders passed in I.A.No. 02 of 2023)
...RESPONDENTS
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 a writ, order Or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 to 5 in failing to de-notify the land admeasuringAc3.02cents in Survey No. 189/1 situated in Lankelapalem Village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District belongs to the petitioner from prohibited properties list as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14. 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondentsNo.2to5tode- notify the said land in Survey No. 189/1, an extentofAc3.02centssituated at Lankelapalem Village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from
/
y prohibited properties list by considering the petitioner's Mee Seva application within time prescribed.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 nottointerferewiththe Petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the land overanextentofAc3.02 cents in Survey No. 189/1 situated at LankelapalemVillage, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District during the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court.
LA. No.1 of 2024
Between:
Garimella Raghu Rama Murthy, Age 68 Years, S/o. LateVenkataRmaana Murthy, 58-21-12, Seetaramaraju Nagar, Gopalapantnam Rural, Gopalapantnam, Viskhapatnam.
Pusuluri Venkata Jaganath, Age 70 Years, S/o. Late Venkata Ramana Murthy, 50-22-5, TPT Colony, Seetammadhara, Near theHinduOffice,P&T Colony (vm) Visakhapatnam.
...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS Nos.9 & 10 AND
...PETITIONERS
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondents as respondentNo.9and10 in the cause title of the main writ petition and aswellasinallmiscellaneous petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Between:
Sri Paradesamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Rep.by Manager/Executive Officer, Lankelapalem Village, Paravada Mandal, VisakhapatnamDistrict.
...VACATE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.5 in WP
AND
(RR 9 to 12 are impleaded as per the Court Order dt.22.10.2024vide orders passed in I.A.No. 02 of 2023)
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 27-01-2022passed in WP. 1876/2022.
lA NO: 3 OF 2022
Between:
The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam,
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
AND
...RESPONDENT/PETIITIONER
AND
(RR 9 to 12 are impleaded as per the Court Order dt.22.10.2024vide orders passed in I.A.No. 02 of 2023)
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to vacate the interim order dt.27.01.2022 passed in lA No.1 of 2022 in WP.NO.1876 of 2022.
lA NO: 4 OF 2022
Between:
...PETITiONERS/RESPONDENTS
AND
r
8.V6pada Manash, S/o. Lata Krishna Rao, R/o. Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District.
Q.Vapada Vimala D/o. Lata Krishna Rao, R/o. Anakapalli,Visakhapatnam District.
(R2 to R5 are not necessary parties in this petition)
(RR 9 to 12 are impleaded as per the Court Order dt.22.10.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 02 of 2023)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to vacate the interim order dated 27-1-2022 in WP.No.1876/2022 and dismiss the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI RAVI TEJA DOMMETI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,6 to 8 ; GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI N.V. PRASADVARMA, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12 ; SRI V. SREEMANNARAYANA
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
APHC010027462022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
I.A.No. 1 of 2024
In/ and
WRIT PETITION NO: 1876 OF 2022
Between;
Vepada Varahalamma (died) and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.RAVI TEJA DOMMETI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitutionofIndia,
seeking the following relief:
“ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the ResponentNo. 2to5Infailingto
de-notify the land admeasuring Ac. 3.02 cents in Sy.No. 189/1 situated in Lankelapalem Village, Paravada Mandal, VisakhapatnamDistrictbelongsto the petitioner from prohibited properties list as illegal,arbitraryandinviolation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India,consequentlydirectthe respondents No.2 to 5 to de-notify the said land inSy.No.189/1,anextentof Ac. 3.02 cents situated at Lankelapalem Village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from prohibited properties listbyconsideringthe petitioner’s Mee Seva Application within time prescribedandpasssuchother orders....” 2. Heard Mr. D. Ravi Teja, learned counsel for thepetitioner;learned Assistant Government Pleader, Revenue for the respondents 1, 6 to 8, Mr. N.V.S.Prasad Varma, learned Government Pleader, Endowmentsforthe3to 5; Mr. V. Sreemannarayana, learned counsel for therespondents9to12.
3
r
Endowments, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.Hence,thepresentwrit petition came to be filed.
4
by Sy.No. 189 of Lankelapalem Village is classified as ‘Government Dry’ anc the name of “Paradesamma Grama Devatha” was recorded as Pattadar vide Patta No.436. It, being endowment land, the same was denotified as Endowment land and published under Section 22(1)(a)(c) of Registration Act, 1908. But, land in Sy.No. 189 changed hands by way of registered document without any valid permission from the Endowment Department, which is violation of provisions of Section 80 and 81 of A.P.Charitableand Hindu Religious Institions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short ‘the Endowment Act’). Aggrieved by the sale transactions, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Visakhapatnam has filed O.A.No.13 of 2022beforethetribunal for injunction and obtained interim orders to maintain status quo and the matter is pending. It is further contended that duringthecourseofSettlement Operations, the Settlement Authorities entertained all the claims and determined the new rights under Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and granted Settlement Pattas to all the eligible persons and preparedSettlementrecords. In the instant case, the name of the 1®* petitionerorthenameofhervendoror vendors’s vendor are not recorded in the Settlement Records as Pattadar in respect of the subject land, which is classified as Government Dry in the name of ‘Paradesamma Grama Devatha’, but some registered sale transactions took place in respect of subject land in violation of provisions of Section 81 of the Endowments Act. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
5
m 7. Mr. V. Sreemannarayana, learned counsel for the proposed respondents filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking relief to implead the proposed respondents in the writ petition and contended that the petitioners and their family members sold an extentofAc.1.00centsoflandin Sy.No. 189 of Lankalapalem Village, Sabbavaram RevenueSub Division Visakhapatnam to the proposed respondents vide two registered Sale Deeds dated 21.03.1986 respectively. The petitioners alsosoldtheseveralextentsof land under various registered sale deed to the third parties. Therefore, the petitioners have sold the entire extent of land Ac. 3.02 cents, which is in the name of 1®‘ petitioner to various persons by way of registered sale deeds including the proposed respondents. Thus, the petitioners have no right to file this writ petition. The proposed respondents have observed that recently the petitioners are trying to encroach upon the lands of the proposed respondents and trying to sell away to other parties. Therefore the proposed respondents filed the application to implead them as party respondents in the writ petition.
t r
I 6 1 \ - ■
land and published under Section 22(1)(a)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, but, admitted that the said land conveyed through several registered documents without any valid permission from the Endowments Department and in violation of provisions of Section 80 and 81 of the Endowments Act. Therefore, it is presumed that there is a title dispute between the parties. In view of the said scenario, the relief as claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in the lightofdecision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in “Vinjamuri RajagopalachariandOthersv. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Others’’^ wherein it was held that once the property is entered in the Register prescribed, it is prima facie proved that it is owned by religious and charitable endowments. The aggrieved party in that event, shall have to resort to a remedy that maybeavailableunderthe Endowment Act.
^2016 ALT (Rev) 41 (FB)
7
.rSf'A to pursue their remedies before the A.P.EndowmentsTribunalinaccordance
with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
closed.
Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
//TRUE COPY//
% ff SECTION OFFICER
Cnr
1
HIGH COURT
DATED:10/12/2024
ORDER
I.A. No.1 of 2024 In/and WP.No.1876 of 2022
(h= 0 5 FEB 2025 m
. Current Sect!
Sj^'rSPATCV*'
'.fip-
I.A. No.1 of 2024 IS CLOSED DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should de-notify land from the prohibited properties list where title is disputed between the petitioner and the temple/endowment authorities.
Whether the petitioners' remedy lies before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal instead of a mandamus under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari and Others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue and OthersRelied on¶8
2016 ALT (Rev) 41 (FB)
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Vepada Varahalamma (died)
Vepada Ravi Shankar Srinivasa Rao
Mutha Varalakshmi
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Sri Paradesamma Ammavari Devasthanam
Garimella Raghu Rama Murthy and Pusuluri Venkata Jaganath (proposed respondents)
K. Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
