Chintala Amareswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

i.p
O o
I

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA^^^^g^Q^^^

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 5541 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Chintala Amareswara Rao, S/o. Satyam, Aged about⁴⁰ years, R/o. D.No.3148, Main Road. Timmalayapalem Gokavaram, East Godavari District.

¶11

Vakapalli Suri Babu, S/o. Suranna, Aged about 46 Years, R/o. D.No.4179, Main Road, Tirumalayapalem, Gokavaram, East Godavari District.

¶12

Chintala Satyanarayana, S/O; Muniyya, Aged about 75 years, R/o. D.No.2165, Main Road, Tirumalayapalem, Gokavaram East Godavari District.

¶13

Chintala Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Gurrabbay. Aged about⁵⁴ years, R/o D.No.4159, Main Road, Tirumalayapalem, Gokavaram East Godavari District.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

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

¶17

The District Collector, Rajamahendravaram District, Dhavaleswaram Industrial Estate, Dhavaleswaram, Rajamahendravaram Andhra Pradesh-533107.

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirumalayapalem, Gokavaram Mandal. Rajamahendravaram. East Godavari District-533286.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Revenue, Gokavaram Mandal Revenue Office, Gokavaram-533285.

¶20

Sri Sitarama Swamyvari Devastanam, Rep by its Executive Officer, Endowments Department. Korukonda, Korukonda Mandal,^East Godavari District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 Respondent No.5, in proposing to conduct auction for lease of the lands of the Petitioners land admeasuring Ac. 11.73 cents in Sy. No.415, situated at Tirumalayapalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, as Illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 not to lease the lands of the Petitioners in the proposed auction dated 06/03/2025 (or any other date). (Prayer is amended as per the Court’s order dt.06.03.2025 in lA No.02/2025 in Writ Petition and affidavit)

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 Respondents not to lease the land admeasuring^{Ac.11.73cents} in Sy. No.415, situated at Tirumalayapalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal. pertaining to the Petitioners through the auction notice Dt.20/02/2025 issued proposing to conduct auction of the subject lands on 06/03/2025 (or any other date).

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. VARA LAKSHMI CHEKURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5:SRI K. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

APHC010112012025

¶28

[3458]

¶29

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

¶30

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 5541/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

Chintala Amareswara Rao and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶39

1.VARA LAKSHMI CHEKURI

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:-

¶44

Heard Smt. Vara Lakshmi Chekuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivas Pathuri, learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleaderfor} Endowments.

¶45

Challenging the auction notice dated 20.02.2025 proposing to conduct the auction of lease hold in respect of the subject land of the 5*^ respondent temple on 06.03.2025, the present writ petition^isfiled.

¶46

It is contended that the petitioners’ ancestors are^theownersof the subject properties. Seeking a declaration of title^{withrespecttothesubject} property, one Chinna Venkatacharyulu filed suit in^{O.S.No.338of1945,onthe}

¶47

2

¶48

file of District Munsif, Rajahmundry, against the ancestors of the petitioners, the suit was ended in compromise. The petitioners’ ancestors were to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per year towards lease rentals. On account of some delay in payment of lease rentals, the plaintiffs in the suit^{filedE.R,forexecutionofthe} terms of compromise. The E.R was dismissed. Against^theorder in E.R, A.S.No.63 of 1969, was filed on the file of District Judge, East Godavari. The appeal was dismissed, observing that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Retition.

¶49

It is contended that the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue books. After the demise, the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue books and were also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is contended that the that the subject land does not belong to the Endowments Department. The Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of this Court in W.R.No. 10744 of 2020. Wherein this Court has observed that the petitioners have purchased the subject lands and since then they have been raising paddy crops. When they are in possession of the property, the temple authorities have proposed to conduct auction of the lease hold rights of the subject property. Having regard to the said factual position, this Court is of the view that the claim in respect of the property has to be decided by the appropriate Tribunal^{constitutedunder} the Act. The liberty was granted to the temple to follow procedure to evict the petitioners therein, if their possession is found to^{beunauthorized.} Till such time, the temple authorities are directed not to put the lease hold rights of the

¶50

3

¶51

property to auction. The learned counsel for the petitioner^{praysforgrantof} similar relief, in the instant case also.

¶52

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Temple submits that the 5*^ respondent is the owner^{ofthesubjecttand.} One Maramganti Ramanuja Charyulu has constructed the^{temple in1914 and} endowed land in an extent of Ac.71.77 cents vide registered wHI dated 17.11.1919. Temple was subsequently registered under Section 38 of Endowments Act and pattadar pass books were issued in the name of the temple, after the appointment of E.O., notification dated 20.02.2025 for conducting public auction of lease hold rights of the^{landbelongingtothe} temple, was issued. Thus argues that the writ petition does not merit consideration.

¶53

Leaned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision^ofthis Court in W.P (PIL) No.70 of 2022, wherein the Division^{Benchobservedthat} the remedy available to the aggrieved party for deletion^{oftheproperties,} registered under Section 43 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable^and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 from^the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A (1) (C) of the Registration^Act, 1908, is to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of^{TheAndhraPradesh} Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments^Act,1987.

¶54

\

¶55

Having regard to the contentions advanced, the Court^isoftheview that the basis for the claim made by the petitioners^{forthesubjectlandsis}

¶56

4

¶57

their occupation and payment of land revenue. Injuncting^{fromconductof} auction of the leasehold rights in respect of the subject lands, based on few cist receipts, which indicate the payment of land revenue^on behalf of the temple by some of the petitioners herein, for consecutive 4-5 years, in one instance, and the pattadar pass books alleged to have^been issued in the name of the forefathers of the petitioners, may not be justifiable. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts, the petitioners therein have perfected their title through registered sale deeds executed in their favour by different individuals.

¶58

However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach^theTribunal under Section 87(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, for redressal of their grievance.

¶59