Anagani Danaiah,Krishna Dist Vs Govt.of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Anagani Danaiah,Krishna Dist Vs Govt.of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None granted; Writ Petition No.16770/2014 dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondents 2 and 4 in filing the eviction petition OA No.76/2014 under Sec.83 of the Act 30 of 1987 before the A P Endowments Tribunal, and the Tribunal's action in entertaining it, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction (sought to be declared so and quashed by writ of prohibition). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Recording the petitioner's counsel's submission that, in view of the orders dated 24.03.2025 passed in O.A.No.76 of 2014, the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter has become infructuous, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending (including the interim-stay application IA No.1 of 2014/WPMP 20832 of 2014) shall stand closed.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

AP High Court, Amaravati (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.; decided 03.03.2026) - Writ Petition No.16770/2014: Anagani Danaiah (petitioner, agriculturist of Vadali village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District) had sought a writ of prohibition / quashing of the action of Respondents 2 (Sri Jagannadha Swami Vari Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer) and 4 (Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada) in filing an eviction petition, OA No.76/2014, under Sec.83 of the Act 30 of 1987 before the 5th Respondent, the A P Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, and of the Tribunal's entertainment of that petition, contending it to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. At hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that orders dated 24.03.2025 passed in O.A.No.76 of 2014 meant the cause no longer survived and the matter had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the Judge dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions (including the interim-stay application IA No.1 of 2014/WPMP 20832 of 2014 under Section 151 CPC) as a sequel. No precedent was cited and the jurisdictional contention framed by the petitioner was never adjudicated by this Court.

APHC010566222014

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

[3329]

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16770/2014

Between:

ANAGANI DANAIAH,KRISHNA DIST, S/O.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.VADALI. POST & VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

GOVT OF AP PRL SCY ENDOWMENTS HYD 4, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - ENDOWMENTS, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

SRI JAGANNADHA SWAMI VARI DEVASTHANAM, VADALI VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GENERAL, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA.

A P ENDOWMENTS TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD, -

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toto issue a Writ of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 & 4 in filing eviction

2

petition vide OA No.76/2014 under Sec.83 of the Act 30 of 1987 before the 5th Respondent and the action of the 5th Respondent in entertaining the said petition is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and quash the same

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 20832 OF 2014

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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in OA No.76/2014 pending on the file of the 5th Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V SESHA KUMARI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

2.PULIPATI RADHIKA

The Court made the following:

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 16770/2014

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the orders dated 24.03.2025 passed in O.A.No.76 of 2014, the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

03.03.2026 TPS

4

105

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 16770/2014

03.03.2026 TPS