Godugu Ramesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VETAPAIEM VENKATESWARLU,, S/O.PEDA MASTAN, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.M.VEMUIAPADU VILLAGE, M.VEMUIAPADU POST, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶10

PENUBAPUIA THIRUPATHI SWAMI,, S/O.VENKAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.M.VEMUIAPADU VILLAGE, M.VEMUIAPADU POST, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶11

PENUBAPULA RAMANAIAH,, S/O.VENKAIAH, AGED 80 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.M.VEMUIAPADU VILLAGE, M.VEMUIAPADU POST, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶12

PENUBAPULA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O.LATE. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.M.VEMUIAPADU VILLAGE, M.VEMUIAPADU POST, SANTH.-MUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL

¶16

2

¶17

SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT-A.P, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.523001

¶20

THE SRI VEERESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.VEMULAPADU VILLAGE,. SANTHANUTHALAPADU MAN PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 523225

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particulalry one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners with regard Petitioners respective properties of an Extent of Ac.3.90 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/1, an Extent of Ac.3.55 Cents situated Extent of Ac. 1.42 Cents situated inin R.S.No.416/3, an R.S.No.416/2, an Extent of Ac. 1.41 Cents and an Extent of Ac. 1.41 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/2 of M.Vemulapadu Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District without following due process of law under Section 83 Of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions And Endowments Act, 1987 for recoveiy of possession, as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and300-A of the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondents not to interefer with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners property without following due process of law under Section 83 Of Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions And Endowments Act, 1987 for recovery of possession and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to DIRECT the Respondents not to interefer with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners respective properties of an Extent of Ac.3.90 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/1, an Extent of Ac.3.55 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/3, an Extent of Ac. 1.42 Cents situated in

¶25

3

¶26

R.S.No.416/2, an Extent of Ac.1.41 Cents and an Extent of Ac.1.41 R.S.No.416/2 of M.Vemulapadu Village,Cents situated in Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition in the interest of justice and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

4

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9203/2026

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶36

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶37

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners with regard petitioners respective properties of an extent of Ac.3.90 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/1, an Extent of Ac.3.55 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/3, an Extent of Ac.1.42 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/2, an Extent of Ac.1.41 Cents and an Extent of Ac.1.41 Cents situated in R.S.No.416/2 of M.Vemulapadu Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District without following due process of law under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for recovery of possession, as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners’ property without following due process of law under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for recovery of possession and pass such other order.”

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶39

Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are pattadars and possessors of their respective lands i.e., an extent of Ac.3.90 cents in R.S.No.416/1, an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in R.S.No.416/3, an extent of Ac.1.42 cents in R.S.No.416/2,

¶41

5

¶42

an extent of Ac.1.41 cents and an extent of Ac.1.41 cents situated in R.S.No.416/2 of M.Vemulapadu Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioners were declared as pattadars and possessors in view of the ryotwari Patta granted in their favour by following due procedure as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. Since, then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. While so, the respondents herein are claiming that the subject properties are the properties of the respondent No.4-temple and the petitioners herein encroached/occupied the subject land and have been enjoying the subject properties without doing any service to the temple.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

¶44

even assuming that the petitioners are not rightful owners and even they occupied the subject land, the fact remains that the petitioners are in possession of the subject properties as confirmed as per the proceedings issued by the Joint Collector dated 28.02.2026. Therefore, the respondents shall follow due process of law as contemplated under Section 83(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (herein after referred as Act, 1987) for removal of encroachments if any as determined by the respondents.

¶45

6

¶46

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for

¶47

respondent No.4 furnished written instructions, wherein it is stated that so far the respondents not initiated any action as contemplated under Section 83(2) of the Endowments Act. The subject lands were notified as Bajantri Inam lands, for enjoyment of the subject lands by the persons who are rendering the Bajantri service to the temple. She further submits that once the subject properties or lands are notified as service Inam that lands are vested with the temple, but the same can be enjoyed by the people who recognized as service Inamdars as long as they are doing service to the temple. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are not rendering any Bajantri service to the temple. Therefore, the petitioners cannot hold subject lands as owners of the subject lands. As such, the respondenttemple would be granted liberty to proceed further in accordance with law more particularly as per Section 83(2) of the Act, 1987.

¶48

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to follow due process of law as contemplated under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Till finalization/completion of the due process as contemplated, the respondents are restrained from interfering with

¶49

7

¶50

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners.

¶51