Disposed

Gantayath Abhinash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2024WP/7810/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a writ petition challenging the temple's claim over private land. The Bench directed parties to approach the Endowments Tribunal for title resolution, granting liberty to file applications and restraining temple authorities from interfering with possession until disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to parties to approach Endowments Tribunal; temple restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession.

Gantayath Abhinash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010108662015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3310]

¶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: 7810/2015

Between:

Gantayath Abhinash,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶20

2.E SAMBASIVA PRATAP

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

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

¶24

the following relief:

¶25

“….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in unilaterally treating private land of the petitioner an extent of 266 sq yds of land in Survey No 206/2, 208 covered by Plot No 60 of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as belonging to the 2nd respondent temple and in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A 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…..”

¶26

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of an extent of 266 Sq yds of land in Sy.No.206/2 and 208 of Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam District covered by Plot No.60 and the same was purchased under a registered sale deed vide Document No.4889 of 2007, dated 18.06.2007. In the Survey and Settlement Register, the subject lands in Survey Nos.208 and 205 of Adavivaram village was shown as “Zeroyati” and not as “Inam” and the assessment is shown as Rs 36.13 Annas, and the total extent is shown as Ac 18.39 cts and the land is shown as “Dry” and “Uncultivated” in Remarks column, at the time of settlement. The same was not endowed or granted in favour of the 2^nd respondent temple. It is stated that No Ryotwari patta, in relation to the subject lands, were granted to the temple under the provisions of A.P. (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 and even if such pattas had been granted, the same would be illegal, as no Ryotwari Pattas could have been granted in relation to those lands that were not Inam lands. Further 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, 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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

grievance. Therefore, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition, with the following directions :

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39