Vemireddy Hamsa Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

n

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3588 OF 2025

¶6

Between;

¶7

Vemireddy Hamsa Kumar Reddy. S/o. Late Sundararami Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o. Devarapalem Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.

¶12

The Sri Mallikarjuna Kamakshi Tayee Devasthanam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Jonnawada, SPSR Nellore District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Rural PS, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 3'"'^ respondent in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and seeking to demolish the structures In the site of 30 Anakanams within the boundaries on East: Vacant Site West: Road, North: Ethupothala Padhakam Vacant Site South: Nellore to Jonnawada R&B Road situated at

¶16

Devarapalem Village as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents^3and 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the site of 30 Anakanams within the boundaries on East: Vacant Site, West: Road, North: Ethupothala Padhakam Vacant Site South: Nellore to Jonnawada R&B Road situated and Devarapalem Village. iA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondent not to demolish the^{structuresandinterfere} with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of site of 30 Anakanams within the boundaries on East: Vacant Site, West: Road, North: Ethupothala Padhakam Vacant Site South: Nellore^toJonnawada R&B Road situated and Devarapalem Village pending disposal^oftheabove Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI S.NAGARAJU NAGURU, SC

¶18

FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

' APHC010064882025

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶22

[3458]

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 3588/2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

Vemireddy Hamsa Kumar Reddy

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.NAGARAJU NAGURU

¶38

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶39

The Court made the following;

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Challenging the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land in an extent of 30 anakanams located in Sy.No.26/1 situated at Devarapalem Village, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶42

The petitioner contends that the petitioner and his ancestors are in occupation of the subject property, have obtained an electricity service connection, and have been paying property tax in respect^{ofthepropertythat} has been constructed in the said 30 Anakanams. It is^{contendedthat3rd} respondent gave a complaint to the 4th respondent. Based on the complaint, the 4th respondent prevents the petitioner from enjoying^hisproperty.

¶43

Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Standing Counsel and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and^{3contendsthatthe} 3^^^ respondent temple owns an extent of Ac.13.25 cents^{presently.However,} the petitioner has encroached into the temple property^{locatedinSy.No.28/1.} Therefore, in order to protect temple property, they have removed the constructions raised in the encroached portion. He^{thuscontendsthatthe} petitioner is again encroaching into the property belonging^tothetemple.

¶44

Considered the rival submissions. It is relevant to^{refertoprovisionsof} Section 83 of The Andhra Pradesh charitable and Hindu^{ReligiousInstitutions} and Endowments Act 1987, which reads as follows;

¶45

Encroachment of land, building, or any property^belongingtoa charitable or religious institution or endowment and^{theevictionof} encroacher:- (1) Not withstanding anything to the contrary^containedin this Act or any other law for the time being in force,^{theencroachmentof} land, building, or any property of a charitable or^{religiousinstitutionor} endowment is prohibited.

¶46

(2) The Executive Officer of the Charitable or Religious^{Institutionor} Endowment or the Assistant Commissioner or any authority^higherin

¶47

rank thereof, shall, by notice, require the encroacher^to remove the encroachment as herein after provided.

¶48

\

¶49

The above provisions, provides a mechanism for removal of encroachments in the lands belonging to the Endowment or Charitable Institutions.

¶50

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to follow the procedure prescribed under^{Section83oftheAndhra} Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, for removal of the constructions or encroachments into the lands belonging to the 3rd respondent after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

¶51

¶52

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed^of.

¶53