Endowments eviction notice challenged by writ petition. Interim order of 29.09.2016 directed respondents not to evict without due process. Government Pleader submitted no further orders were needed in view of that interim order; the writ petition was closed.
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.
[3310]
APHC010005262016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 33354/2016
Between:
M V Ramana Rao
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“.. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notice in SRST1/0103/201631 dated 9.9.2016 purportedly under
amended Rule 15 of G.O.Ms no 426 dated 09.1. 2015 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments immovable properties and other right other than Agricultural leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 calling upon the petitioner to vacant and hand over possession of shop no.26 bearing D.No.15-5-19 totally extent of 50 ankanams situated at Nellore SPSR Nellore District as illegal and in contravention of the 1987 Act without authority of law and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to desist from taking any action against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid property and pass. ..”
Pleader for Endowments is present.
“…Heard both the counsel.
The respondents are hereby directed not to evict the petitioner without following the due procedure. If the petitioner fails to file explanation to the impugned notice, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law..” .
Endowments submits that in view of the interim orders of this Court, dated 29.09.2016, no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition and the same may be closed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands
closed.
_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date: 25.11.2024 TM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notice under amended Rule 15 of the Endowments Rules calling upon the petitioner to vacate shop no. 26 was illegal?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M V Ramana Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
