Allowed

Velpula Venkata Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Aug 2025WP/15006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petitions challenging an eviction order issued under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, against occupants of Inam land.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act were set aside as the 4th respondent lacked jurisdiction; the case was remitted to the proper forum under Section 77.

Velpula Venkata Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

y V

APHC010301962025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH u AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) v-

¶5

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V'

¶6

PRESENT V-'

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOS. 15005 & 15006 OF 2025 I

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 15005 OF 202^

¶10

Between:

¶11

Pinneboyina Satyanarayana, S/o Subbaiah, R/o 1-121, Rayavarm Village and post. Markapuram Mandal.Prakasam District.

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati.

¶15

The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR^District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ongole, Prakasam District

¶16

Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamy vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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 any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 4th respondent in issuing the orders passed in Rc. No. - Nil/2025, dated 09-06-

¶19

1 ^^^2025 as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said orders vide Rc. No.-Nii/2025, dated 09-06-2025.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

% %

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated}

¶23

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend^he orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No. -Nil/2025, dated:0906-2025. V

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between:

¶25

Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swan^ vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶26

...Petitioners/Respondent .4

¶27

AND

¶28

Pinneboyina Satyanarayana, S/o^'Subbaiah, R/o 1-121, Rayavarm Village and post, Markapuram Mandal,Prakasam District.

¶29

...Respondents/Petitioner

¶30

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal ^cretary. Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati.

¶31

The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada NTR^District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ongole, Prakasam District

¶32

...Respondents/Respondents

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025 and dismiss the above writ.

¶34

¶35

S'.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K CHINNA VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s DEVI SUBHASHINI^ANNE,SCFor Endowments

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 15006 OF 2025

¶38

Between:

¶39

Velpula Venkata Reddy, S/o Konda reddy, Aged about⁷² years ,Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶40

...Petitioner

¶41

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati.

¶42

The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada^NTRDistrict. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department Ongole Prakasam District.

¶43

Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Swamy vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal,Prakasam^District. ...Respondents

¶44

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 any writ or order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondentⁱⁿ passing orders vide Rc. No.Nil dated .09-06-2025 during^{pendencyofO.A} No.24 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh State Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary and without any

¶45

¶46

^jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said order^vide Rc. No. Lands-Nil dated.09-06-2025.

¶47

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No.-Nil dated:^-062025 pending the Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court.

¶49

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶50

Between:

¶51

Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava SwanTy vari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive officer, Markapur Town and Mandal,Prakasam^District.

¶52

...Petitioners/Respondent.4

¶53

AND

¶54

Velpula Venkata Reddy,'^^/o Konda reddy. Aged about 72 years ,Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶55

...Respondents/Petitioner

¶56

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati.

¶57

The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada^NTRDistrict. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶58

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025^anddismiss the above writ.

¶59

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K CHINNA VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS^ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: DEVI SUBHASHINrANNE SC For Endowments

¶61

The Court made the following Common order:

¶62

¶63

APHC010301962025

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶65

0;*0 AT AMARAVATl [3458] 0K? (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶66

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶69

WRIT PETITION NO: 15005/2025

¶70

Between;

¶71

1.PINNEBOYINA SATYANARAYANA, S/0 SUBBAIAH, R/0 1-121, RAYAVARM VILLAGE AND POST, MARKAPURAM MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶72

AND

¶73

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATl.

¶74

2.THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT.

¶75

3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶76

4.SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA SWAMY VARIDEVASTANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶77

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶78

Petition under. Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying^thatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased topleased to issue any writ or order or direction^{moreparticularlyone} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned^{orderofthe4th}

¶79

¶80

respondent in issuing the orders passed in Rc. No. - Nil/2025, dated 09-062025 as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said orders vide Rc. No.-Nii/2025, dated 09-06-2025 and pass

¶81

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶82

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the orders passed by 4th respondent in Rc. No. -Nil/2025, dated:09-06-2025 and pass

¶83

lA NO; 2 OF 2025

¶84

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025^{anddismisstheabove} writ and pass

¶85

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶86

1.KCHINNAVENKAT REDDY

¶87

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶88

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶89

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments

¶90

APHC010296322025

¶91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶92

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶95

WRIT PETITION NO: 15006/2025

¶96

Between:

¶97

¶98

VELPULA VENKATA REDDY, S/0 KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT⁷² YEARS ,MARKAPURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶99

...PETITIONER

¶100

AND

¶101

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶102

2.THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT.

¶103

3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶104

4.SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA SWAMY VARI DEVASTANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER MARKAPUR TOWN AND MAN DAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶105

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶106

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 topleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing orders vide Rc. No.Nil dated .09-06-2025 2025 during pendency of O.A No.24 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh State Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said order^vide Rc. No. Lands-Nil dated.09-06-2025 and pass

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶111

¶112

May be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 01-07-2025 and dismiss the above writ and pass

¶113

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶114

K CHINNA VENKAT REDDY

¶115

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶116

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶117

DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments

¶118

The Court made the following:

¶119

COMMON ORDER -

¶120

Heard Sri K. Chinna Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Sri V. Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶121

Since the issue involved in both cases is one and the same, it IS appropriate to dispose of the cases by way of a ‘Common Order’.

¶122

The Writ Petitions are filed challenging orders of the 4*^ respondent passed under Sec.83 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act (30 of 1987’) vide RC.No.Nil/2025 dated 09.06.2025

¶123

It is contended that the 4*^ respondent issued a notice stating that the 4*'’ respondent temple is the absolute owner of the subject property however, the petitioner(s) were in occupation of the subject property, therefore, the petitioner(s) were asked to show cause/explain as to why he

¶124

■p'-.i’’

¶125

¶126

should not be treated as an encroacher within the meaning of the provisions of Sec.83 (2) of the Act (30 of 1987) and be evicted accordingly.

¶127

It is contended by the temple authorities that the 4*^ respondent is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac 3.80 cents of land in Sy. No.635 of Markapuram town, which is inam land meant for Thulasi Pushpamala Nowkri Service’. The register maintained under the provisions^{oftheAndhraPradesh} Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) and Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) also shows^{thatthesaidextentof} Ac-3.80 cents is the property of the temple. It is stated by the respondents in the said notice that in view of the amendments made to the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, in 2013 stating that in case of any service inams, the temple alone is entitled for ryotwari patta and if, any pattas were granted in favour of those persons who had rendered service to the temple, are null and void. Observing thus, the 4 th respondent passed the impugned proceedings requiring the petitioner(s) to vacate from the subject land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, they approached this Court.

¶128

This Court vide order dated 01.07.2025, directed the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner(s) pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2025.

¶129

¶130

The learned counsel for the petitioner(s), referring to provisions of Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987), contends that any sale, gift, or exchange, mortgage, or lease of an Inam land granted for the support and maintenance of the Charitable Institution or Religious Institution, for performance of a religious or public charity^or service shall be null and void. Unless the same is effected with prior sanction of the government, and he further contends that i n view of the provision of Sec.77 of the Act (30 of 1987), it is the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who can conduct an enquiry and pass orders for eviction in the cases of inam lands, in which the institution or the endowment has an interest.

¶131

The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) thus argues that the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the petitioner(s) has also filed an O.A. before the A.P. State Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur, in O.A. No. 24 of 2025, and the same is still pending. When the said O.A. is pending, the respondents have passed the impugned proceedings.

¶132

The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Takkella Lakshminarasaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others\ wherein it is observed that;

¶133

“47. Section 4(4) was repealed earlier and now, substituted by another clause shown in Italics. According to

¶134

'2020{3)ALD29(AP){DB)

¶135

¶136

¶137

sub-section (4) of Section 4, substituted by Act No. 16 of 2013 is given effect from 26.11.1956 i.e., giving retrospective^effect from the date of commencement of original enactment,^where an inam land is with a burden to render service, or for performance of a religious or public charity, or as a remuneration for performance of certain customary service, to an institution or endowment, no person shall be entitled to Ryotwari Patta, and the institution or Endowment alone^shallbe entitled to Ryotwari Patta for such Inam land without any restriction of extent and without the condition of personal cultivation. ”

¶138

And a judgment in W.P.No.28866 of 2024 and 28869 of^2024.

¶139

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner(s) are in unauthorized and unlawful occupation of the temple property. The petitioner(s) was never a servicedar,^{hehasencroachedonthe} property without the authority of law. Therefore, notice^was issued under Section 83 (2) of the Act (30 of 1987).

¶140

The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Venugopal Rao, appearing^for Smt. Devi Subhashini Anne, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent, referring to the register maintained under^{Section43oftheAct} (30 of 1987), submits that the inaam was granted for a specific service, namely, thulasi pushpamala seva. In terms of the provisions^oftheAndhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, in such a case, the temple alone is entitled to the issuance of a ryotwari patta; the service holder is not entitled to a ryotwari patta.

¶141

¶142

The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner(s) has an effective alternate remedy before^{theTribunalwithout} availing the said remedy under Sec.87 of the Act. The petitioner(s) has approached this Court, which is unsustainable. It is further argued that when inaam was granted for a specific purpose of rendering^{someservicetothe} temple, the said property would not gain the characteristics of an absolute property of the inaamdhaars/service holders.

¶143

Considered the submissions. 14. For adjudication of the issues raised in the case, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Sec.75 and 77 of the Act (30 of 1987).

¶144

‘Sec.75. Lease, sale ofinams to be void in certain cases -

¶145

(1) Any lease 1[XXXX] and any gift, sale exchange or mortgage of an inam land granted for the support or maintenance of charitable or religious institution or endowment or for the performance of a religious or public charity or service, shall be null and void unless any such transaction not being a gift, is effected with the prior sanction of the Government.

¶146

(2) Such prior sanction may be accorded by the Government where they consider that the transaction is-

¶147

(i) necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment;

¶148

(II) in regard to the land which is an uneconomical holding for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and

¶149

(Hi) the consideration thereof is adequate and proper.

¶150

(3)The provisions in clause (c) of sub-section (1)^{ofsection80shall} apply for the sale of any inam land.

¶151

¶152

¶153

Sec 77. Resumption of Inam lands -

¶154

either sue motu or on the (1) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, application of the trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment or of the Commissioner or of any person having^interestin the institution or endowment authorised by the Commissioner,^byorder, resume the whole or any portion of any such inam land^referredto in Section 75 on all or any of the following grounds namely [i}that the holder of the inam has effected a transaction^{whichisnulland} void under Section 75;

¶155

(ijlthat the charitable or religious institution or^{endowmenthasceasedto} exist or the charity or service has become impossible^{of performance;}

¶156

(iiilthat the holder of such inam land has failed to^{performormakethe} necessary arrangements for performing, in accordance^{withthecustom} or usage of the institution or endowment, the charity or service^forthe performance of which the inam land was granted.

¶157

{2)(a)Before passing an order under sub-section (1), the Revenue Divisional Officer shall give notice to the trustee,^{totheCommissioner,} to the holder of the inam land, to the person In possession^oftheInam land where he is not the holder thereof and to the^{alienee,ifany,ofthe} mam land and also publish a copy of the notice in such^mannerasmay be prescribed, which publication shall be deemed to^{besufficientnotice} to every other person likely to be affected by such^{order;andconsider} the objections, if any, after holding such inquiry^{asmaybeprescribed.}

¶158

[^Where only a portion of the inam land is affected, notice shall be given under clause (a) to the holder of such portion^{aswellastothe} holder or holders of the other portion or portions to the person In possession of every such portion, where he is not the^{holderthereof} and to the alienee, if any, of every such portion and^{theobjectionsofall} such persons shall be considered by the Revenue Divisional^Officer.

¶159

(3) A copy of every order passed under sub-section (1), shall be communicated to each of the persons mentioned in sub-section^(2)and shall be published In the manner prescribed.

¶160

¶161

[^Where any inam land or portion thereof is resumed under this section, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, by order, grant a ryotwari patta in respect of the inam land or portion thereof to the charitable or religious institution concerned; and where the resumption^is made on the ground specified in item (ii) of Sub-section (1) to any such charitable or religious institution as the Commissioner may recommend.

¶162

MThe order, granting the ryotwari patta under clause (a) shall, on application made to the Revenue Divisional Officer within the time prescribed be executed by him in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf (^Pending the resumption of an inam land or portion thereof under this section on the ground specified in item (Hi) of sub- section (1), the Revenue Divisional Officer may direct the person in possession of the inam land or portion thereo,f to pay to the trustee, the expenses incurred or likely to be incurred for the performance of the charity or service to the institution or endowment. In default of such payment, the Revenue Divisional Officer may pass an order or make such arrangement as he considers necessary for the performance of the charity or service; and the expenses incurred therefor shall be recovered from the person in possession of the inam land or portion thereof, as if they were arrears of land revenue.”

¶163

In the light of the above provisions of the Act (30 of 1987), the Revenue Divisional Officer, may either suo moto or on application filed by the trustee of the endowments or charitable institution or on the application of the Commissioner by order resume the whole or any portion of any such Inam land referred to in Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987) in the cases of lands referred to in Sec.75 of the Act (30 of 1987). After such resumption, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, by order, grant ryotwari patta in respect of the Inam land or portion thereof to the Charitable or Religious^{institutionconcerned.}

¶164

¶165

¶166

Having regard to the above, even according to the respondents, the subject lands are Inam lands, therefore the same^{wouldfallunderSec.75} of the Act (30 of 1987). Hence, in terms of Section 77 of the Act (30 of 1987), it is the RDO who must initiate proceedings to resume the lands, not the Executive Officer acting under the provisions of Section 83 of the Act (30 of 1987). The provisions of Section 83 of the Act (30 of 1987) would not apply to the instant case.

¶167

According to the 4'^ respondent, the subject lands^{areInamlands.} Without expressing any views on the merits of the issue as^to the entitlement to ryotwari patta, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Sec.83 of the Act (30 of 1987), will not apply in the facts of the present case. In the light of the provisions of Sec.77 of the Act (30 of 1987), the 4"" respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Sec.83 of the Act (30 of 1987). Accordingly, the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petitions^aresetaside. However, this order will not preclude the 4‘^ respondent temple from availing the remedies available to it under the law.

¶168