Disposed

Kota Venkata Ramarao and 15 Others v. State of Ap., Endowments Dept.,and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Sept 2024WP/25461/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a fishing-lease auction notification over water tanks in Sunkollu village, claiming title to and possession of the lands. Noting a subsisting title dispute with the respondent temple and no counters filed, the court directed the temple to take steps regarding the property in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the 4th respondent temple to take necessary steps with regard to the subject property in accordance with law; no order as to costs.

Kota Venkata Ramarao and 15 Others Vs State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010411912014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 25461/2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kota Venkata Ramarao & 15 Others and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

State Of AP Endowments Dept 3 Others and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.BONTHU RAJANI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶19

2.ELEVATED AS JUDGE

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

Order:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶23

India, seeking the following relief:

¶24

“…. to issue any appropriate Writ Order more particularly one on the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the auction notification dated 16.08.2014 issued by 4^th respondent and consequential decision to re-conduct of fishing lease hold rights in water tanks of Ac.32.00 cents covered by Survey No.303/1 of Sunkollu Revenue Village in Nuzivid Mandal of Krishna District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules framed thereunder and

¶25

¶26

offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents no to interfere in any manner with said tanks and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ….”

¶27

The facts of the case are that the petitioners are absolute owners of their respective lands purchased under different registered sale deeds and some succeeded from their forefathers. The lands are private lands for over

¶28

100 years and are in possession of private persons and thousands of alienations were taken place over the said lands and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have no right over the said lands. In the year 2011, the 4^th respondent by misrepresenting facts to the Revenue Authorities obtained title deed in respect of the lands of the petitioners. The 4^th respondent issued a notification dated 16.08.2014 for fishing lease hold rights for the water tanks of Ac.32.00 cents in Sy.No.303/1 of Sunkollu Revenue Village. The said water tanks are main water source of irrigation to the lands of the petitioners. If those tanks are given for fish aquaculture, then the lands of the petitioners will become barren and they have no other alternative option for watering their lands. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

¶29

The respondents have not filed their counters.

¶30

Heard Sri T.Praveeen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Bonthu Rajani, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Ms. Pulipati Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for 4^th respondent.

¶31

¶32

On perusing the entire material available on record and on submissions

¶33

made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that there is a title dispute in between the petitioner and 4^th respondent-temple and learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the schedule properties. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter while directing the 4^th respondent to take necessary steps with regard to the subject property, in accordance with law.

¶34