1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.16886 of 2016

Between:

#Althi China Maraiah, ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 28.03.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.16886 of 2016

% 28.03.2025

# Between:

#Althi China Maraiah, ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Rama Sankar Rao

! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

APHC010606772016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 16886/2016

Between:

Althi China Maraiah,

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.

BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

2.

T V S KUMAR

The Court made the following

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

the following relief:

“….to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF

MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in conducting public auction for the land

in Sy.No.261 to an extent of Ac.

Vizianagaram Mandal and District, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of the natural

justice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the responden

dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass…”

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 16886/2016

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

following :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

“….to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF

MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in conducting public auction for the land

in Sy.No.261 to an extent of Ac.-186 cents situated at Jammunarayapuram Villa

Vizianagaram Mandal and District, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of the natural

justice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondent not to conduct auction /

dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass…”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3310]

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT(S)

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

“….to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF

MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in conducting public auction for the land

186 cents situated at Jammunarayapuram Village,

Vizianagaram Mandal and District, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of the natural

justice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and

t not to conduct auction /

4

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner claims to be in

possession of the land in Sy.No.22/1 to an extent of Ac.1.86cents and the land

originally belonged to one Sri. Krishna Shastri, who purchased the land in the

year 1910 from one Latchamma. The said Krishna Shastri is pujari of the

Respondent No.5 temple and who in turn granted a Budhan Patta in favour of

the petitioner on 24.02.1970. Since then, the Petitioner claims to have been in

possession of the above said land, paying rents to Respondent No.5 for the

past 30 years, cultivating the land by raising mango thopes and eking out his

livelihood from doing agriculture in the above said land. It is stated that the

aforementioned temple is a private temple and there was a dispute among its

trustees. The Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.5, after being appointed

as Executive Officer, announced a public auction for the above said land by a

tom tom on 24.05.2016, to be held on 30.05.2016. The action of the

Respondent No.5 conducting public auction without any enquiry, without

issuing notice, and without following the procedure contemplated under the

Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Act, 1987, is illegal and arbitrary. Questioning the action of the respondents,

the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

3. This Court, vide order dated, has granted interim direction as under:

“….Post on 6.6.2016.

Meanwhile, there shall be status quo with regard to the possession of the

land in Sy No.26-1 to an extent of Ac 1.86 cents situated at Jammu Narayanapuram

Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.”

5

4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 5. While

denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that the temple

has the ownership of mango thope measuring Ac. 2.00 cts in

Sy.No.22/3D(old) citing U/Sec. 25 of Act, 1955 and the same was approved

by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department 14.03.1957. As per

Sec. 46(3) of Act 30/87 all entries made in the statutory register are genuine

unless contrary is proved. Further the temple was registered U/Sec. 43 of Act

30/87 and the same was approved by the Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments Department vide Registration No.89, dated: 17.05.1996. This

mango garden was put to public auction and the income derived from the

produce is utilized for the daily rituals of the deity. It is further stated that the

mango garden was given to the Petitioner by a bhoodanpatta dated

24.02.1970 is false, concocted and made for the sake of the writ petition. It is

further stated that initially the temple was managed by the managing trustees

and the present single trustee is appointed in the year 2016. Respondent No.5

further stated upon taking the charge and verifying the records, the single

trustee has derived that the income from mango garden's produce, which was

to be utilized for the daily rituals through public auction, was not done all these

years. As such, the single trustee after obtaining the permission from

Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vizianagaram on

19.05.2016 has issued auction notification dated 19.05.2016 for conducting

public auction of the produce of the mango thope on 30.05.2016 for a period

of three years from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019. While the matter stood thus,

6

the Petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition by creating receipts as

he was there in possession from 1971 to till date which is evident from the

receipt Nos.1 to 14 filed by him dated 19.10.2012 and 12.07.2014 in which he

has paid maktha for the period 1971 to 1974, 1974-77, 1977-80, 1980-83,

1983-86, 1986-90, 1990-95, 1995-98, 1998-2001, 2001-04, 2004-07, 2007-10,

2010-13 and 2013-16. It is further stated that the receipts dated: 19.10.2012

issued for above years itself shows that the then managing trustee and the

Petitioner herein hand in glove have created these receipts for the sake of the

writ petition and to show that the Petitioner is in possession of the land. It is

also stated that the 1(b) registrar in the adangal obtained as on 29.05.2016

reflects the name of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam as the pattedar and

possessor which itself shows that the petitioner is not in the possession of the

land. It is denied that the Petitioner's claims of having developed the land by

spending significant amounts, stating that according to the records in the

Section 25 register, the mango garden existed as far back in the year 1957.

Further the adangal filed by the petitioner are of the year 2010 and the present

adangals show that the temple is the owner and possessor of the mango

garden. In these circumstances, Respondent No.5 contends that unless the

interim orders are vacated, the temple will suffer irreparable loss and injury

that cannot be compensated.

5. Heard Sri B. Rama Sankar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the

respondents.

7

6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the

contents made in the petition, requests this Court to allow the present writ

petition while declaring the action of the respondents.

7. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for the respondents also

reiterated the contents made in the counter and opposed for allowing the writ

petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

8. Perused the material on record.

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

without issuing any notice and without following due procedure, the 5

th

respondent wants to conduct public auction is illegal and arbitrary.

10. It is contended by respondents counsel that the auction was

conducted on 30.05.2016 around 27 persons were participated and 12

persons paid the auction deposit amount of Rs.3,000/- and 5 persons

participated in the audition. The auction was knocked down in favour of one

Sri Yella Chinna Rao, S/o. Seethaiah, R/o. Jammu village for an amount of

Rs.82000/- per annum for the entire extent. However the lease has not been

approved in favour of the highest bidder due to the existing status quo orders.

It is further contended that, if the auction is finalized and the possession is

delivered to the highest bidder, the temple will be benefited, as the amount

paid by the petitioner to the previous trustee towards the ‘maktha’ is not even

one percent in the highest bid amount fetched in the public auction.

8

11. On a perusalof the material on record, it is observed that, the

petitioner has filed a Memo along with documents viz., copy of land Patta,

copy of possession certificate, Copies of Cist receipts and copies of Adangal

and Pahanies, claiming possession over the subject land. Moreover, as per

the recitals in the Section 25 Register the mango garden was in existence as

long as back in the year 1957. Further the adangal filed by the petitioner are

of the year 2010 and the present adangals show that the temple is the owner

and possessor of the mango garden.

12. It is pertinent to mention here Section 87 of The Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in

short ‘the Endowments Act”), which reproduced hereunder:

87. [ Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and

matters. [Substituted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.]

(1)The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after

giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire

into and decide any dispute as to the question.

(a)whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or

endowment;

(b)whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;

(c)whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable

endowment or a religious endowment;

(d)whether any property is a specific endowment;

(e)whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor,

'emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or

endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment

is in regard to any other matter;

9

(f)whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or

religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for

secular or religious uses; or

(g)where any property or money has been given for the support of an

institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a

religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected

with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is

partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any

property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to

religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated

to secular or religious uses;

(h)whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder

of an Institution or Endowment.

(2)The Endowments Tribunal may, pending its decision under subsection (1),

pass such order as it deems fit for the administration of the property or

custody of the money belonging to the institution or endowment.

(3)The Endowments Tribunal may while recording its decision under

subsection (1) and pending implementation of such decision, pass such

interim order as it may deem fit for safeguarding the interest of the institution

or endowment and for preventing damage to or loss or misappropriation or

criminal breach of trust in respect of the properties or moneys belonging to or

in the possession of the institution or endowment.

(4)The presumption in respect of matters covered by Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d)

and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is a public

one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person

claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property or

money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment,

as the case may be.

(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub sections the Deputy

Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the

disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments

Tribunal.]

10

13. Section 88 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 the Right of appeal against the

decision of the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87. [Substituted by Act

No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.]

“Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Endowments Tribunal

under Section 87 and Section 119 may, within ninety days from the date of

receipt of the decision prefer an appeal to the High Court.”

14. As per Section 87 and 88 of the ‘Endowments Act’, it is very clear

that the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after

giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire

into and decide any dispute as to the question. Such exercise could not be

done in the instant case. The learned Government Pleader for the

respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is an encroacher over the

subject property. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition is not

maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

15. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is reproduced

hereunder:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court

shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it

exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in

appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories

directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas

corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of

them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III

and for any other purpose.

11

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions,

orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be

exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the

territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises

for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such

Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within

those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether

by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in

any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all

documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an

application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and

furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour

such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High

Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks

from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the

copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where

the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the

expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open;

and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on

the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the

said next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall

not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by

clause (2) of article 32.”

16. Section 83 of the Endowments Act deals with eviction of

encroachment, which reproduced hereunder:

“ 83. Encroachment of land, building, or any property belonging to

a charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of

encroacher:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this

Act or any other law for the time being in force, the encroachment of land,

12

building, or any property of a charitable or religious institution or endowment

is prohibited.

(2) The Executive Officer of the Charitable or Religious Institution or

Endowment or the Assistant Commissioner or any authority higher in rank

thereof, shall, by notice, require the encroacher to remove the encroachment

as hereinafter provided:

Provided that the encroacher shall be entitled to submit reply/ explanation to

such notice within one week from the date of receipt of such notice, which

shall be duly considered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed:-

(a) Either withdrawing the notice issued and dropping further proceedings; or

(b) Affirming the notice and duly stipulating the time within which such

encroachment shall be removed.

(3) If the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment within such stipulated

period, the authority who issued the notice shall remove the encroachment

with police assistance, if necessary and recover the cost of removal from the

encroacher.

(4) For the purpose of securing police assistance, the authority concerned

shall approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police/ Commissioner of

Police who shall thereupon provide such police assistance as is deemed

necessary for the removal of encroachment.

(5) Any act of encroachment including the attempt to encroach shall be a

cognizable offence, non-bailable and triable as a warrant case, in accordance

with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which

may extend to eight years and with fine which may extend to Rupees one

lakh.

...............”

17. And also 84 of the Endowments Act provides mode of eviction on

failure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the Endowments

Tribunal. [Substituted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.]

13

(1)Where within the period specified in the order under sub-section (4) of

Section 83, the encroacher has not removed the encroachment and has not

vacated the land, building or space, the Assistant Commissioner having

jurisdiction over the sub-division may remove the encroachment and obtain

possession of the land, building or space, encroached upon, taking such

police assistance as may be necessary. Any Police Officer whose help is

required for this purpose shall be required to render the necessary help to the

Assistant Commissioner.

(2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by any order

of the Endowments Tribunal under sub-section (4) of Section 83 from

preferring an appeal before the High Court to establish that the Charitable and

religious Institution or Endowment has no title to the land, building or space:

Provided that no appeal shall be preferred after expiry of ninety days from the

date of receipt of the order under sub-section (4) of Section 83:

Provided further that no such appeal shall be preferred by a person who is let

in to the possession of land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or

mortgagee of Institution or Endowment.]

18. As seen from the material on record, it appears that there is a

serious dispute involved in between the petitioner and 5

th

respondent with

regard to title over the subject land. The petitioner has not chosen to approach

Endowments Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Since the 5

th

respondent

is claiming the subject land as their land, the issue falls within the jurisdiction

of the Endowments Tribunal as per the ‘Endowments Act’. An appeal lies

against the Award passed by the ‘Endowments Tribunal’ under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the

instant case is not comes under purview of under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

14

19. However, it is suffice, to issue a direction to the petitioner to

approach learned Endowments Tribunal by way of filing Interlocutory

Application in O.A. for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law,

within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

submission, the learned Endowments Tribunal is directed to protect the

interest of the petitioner till disposal of Interlocutory Application filed by the

petitioner in O.A. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take any

coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the subject land.

20. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous

applications shall stand closed.

____________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date :. -03-2025

Gvl

15

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.16886 OF 2016

Date: 28.03.2025

Gvl