Disposed

Sri Ainapalli Satyanarayana v. The Executive Officer

Telangana HC16 Sept 2005WP/20451/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging eviction from premises held in custody of a deity, the court held that since the petitioners claim title, the remedy lies under the Endowments Act, specifically via the Deputy Commissioner, not under this writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file application before Deputy Commissioner under Section 87 of the Endowments Act for redressal.

Sri Ainapalli Satyanarayana Vs The Executive Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20451 of 2005

¶3

Dated: 16.09.2005

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ainapalli Satyanarayana and 3 others

¶6

…PETITIONERS

¶7

And:

¶8

The Executive Officer,

¶9

The Deity Sri Sitaramachandra Murthy Swamyvaru Bhupayya Agraharam, Amalapuram Village & Mandal,

¶10

East Godavari District, and 3 others

¶11

…RESPNDENTS

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from the premises bearing D.No.4-2-19, 4-2-18, 4-2-15, 4-2-15/3 respectively, situated in R.D.No.491/6 of SKBR college Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, as arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition is filed.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents are trying to evict the petitioners from the premises in question without any authority and without following due procedure as contemplated under Section 83 of the Endowments Act and therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments contended that the petitioners are claiming title to the property and therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is otherwise.

¶17

The relief sought for in the writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from the premises in question as illegal and arbitrary. It

¶18

is specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the premises in question and they have been in continuation possession and enjoyment of the said premises. Since the petitioners are claiming title to the property, the remedy of the petitioners is otherwise.

¶19

In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87 of the Endowments Act for their redressal.

¶20

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

K.C.BHANU,J

¶22

Dated: 16.09.2005

¶23

Dsr

Sri Ainapalli Satyanarayana v. The Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ainapalli Satyanarayana v. The Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Acha Chandraiah Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

N. Manohar Chowdary, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N.G.K.s.v.K.Prasad Vs The Special Chief Secretary

K.Parvathamma Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Bhukya Tulasiram naik Bhukya Loka Naik Vs The Station House Officer, Tulluru Police

Kallem Chukka Reddy Vs Deputy Registrar