Date of reserved for orders

Date of pronouncement

Date of uploading

APHC010197212024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MONDAY, THE 1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 9754/2024

Between:

1. CALVARI TEMPLE FOUNDATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

R/o. D.NO. 18-6

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

2. M/s.CALVARI

HAFEEZPET, HYDERABAD TELANGANA, AUTHORISED

PERSON SR P.L. ENOCH, S/

TREASURER, R/

HYDERABAD -72

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRATERIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,

KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

Date of reserved for orders : 17.06.2026

Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026

Date of uploading : 01.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE 1

st

DAY OF JUNE 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 9754/2024

CALVARI TEMPLE FOUNDATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

6-35/A, KADARESWARA PETA VIJAYAWADA,

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

TEMPLE FOUNDATION, AT SY.N

HAFEEZPET, HYDERABAD TELANGANA, AUTHORISED

PERSON SR P.L. ENOCH, S/ o. SRI P. SAMUEL LAZARUS,

TREASURER, R/o. 5-2-11, RAMALAYAM ROAD, KUKATPALLI,

72

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRATERIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,

KURNOOL DISTRICT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3330]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

CALVARI TEMPLE FOUNDATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

35/A, KADARESWARA PETA VIJAYAWADA,

AT SY.No.77,

HAFEEZPET, HYDERABAD TELANGANA, AUTHORISED

. SRI P. SAMUEL LAZARUS,

11, RAMALAYAM ROAD, KUKATPALLI,

...PETITIONER(S)

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRATERIAT,

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVT OF ANDHRA

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,

2

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT,

KURNOOL.

5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL REVENUE

DIVISION, KURNOOL, A.P.,

6. THE TAHSILDAR, KURNOOL RURAL MANDAL, KURNOOL,

KURNOOL DISTRICT.

7. SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, R EP. BY ITS MANAGING

TRUSTEE, VENKAYAPALLI H/O. RUDRAVARAM KURNOOL,

KURNOOL DISTRICT.

8. SRI VIGNESWARASWAMI SWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS

MANAGING TRUSTEE, VENKAYAPALLI H/O. RUDRAVARAM

KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

9. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ENDOMENT TRIBUNAL, PEDDA

KAKANI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTIRCT. REP. BY ITS

PRESIDING OFFICER / REGISTER.

...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 to issue order, direction. Writ more particularly

one in the nature of writ of PROHIBITION prohibiting the 8th

Respondent to proceed with the O.A.No.246/2019 on the file of

Endowment Tribunal at Peddakakani, Guntur District as there is no

Jurisdiction to entertain the O.A Under the Provision of AP Charitable

and Endowment Act, and barred by Res-Judicata and without any

jurisdiction and consequently set aside the proceedings in

O.A.No.246/2019 on the file of Endowment Tribunal at Peddakakani,

Guntur District and pass such other order or orders.

IA No: 1 OF 2025

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 grant leave for filing of this Counter Affidavit dated

24.11.2024 in W.P.No. 9754 of 2024 , in the interest of justice.

3

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MSVS SUDHA RANI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

RAYALASEEMAREGION)

3. G RAMANA RAO

4. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following:

4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.9754 of 2024

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue order, direction Writ more particularly one in the

nature of writ of PROHIBITION prohibiting the

8

th

Respondent to proceed with the O.A. No.246/2019 on

the file of Endowment Tribunal at Peddakakani, Guntur

District as there is no Jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.

under the provision of AP Charitable and Endowment Act,

and barred by Res-Judicata and without any jurisdiction and

consequentially prayed to set aside the O.A. No.246/2019

on the file of Endowment Tribunal at Peddakakani, Guntur

District and for such other order or orders….”

2. The 3

rd

respondent filed original application No.246 of

2019’ hereinafter referred to as ‘O.A., on the file of the A.P.

Endowments Tribunal, herein after referred as ‘Tribunal’, seeking a

declaration that the O.A. scheduled property as endowed property

belonging to Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, hereinafter refer as “the

temple”, asserting that the temple is the religious institution published

under Section 6(1)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act 30 of 1987, hereinafter

referred to as “Act 30 of 1987” and the said temple is having agricultural

land in survey No.161/A to an extent of Ac. 6-85 cents situated at

5

Rudravaram village of Kurnool District and the said land was recorded

in the RSR and the said land is being managed by Sri Khadarabada

Vighneswara Swamy Temple, Rudravaram village, Kurnool District,

represented by its Executive Manager and further the inam register

maintained by the revenue authorities for the year 1310 Fasli was

shown Sri Vighneswara Swamy as pattadar and in 1 Namoona register

which is a Revenue Record, the name of the temple was recorded

in the columns maintained by the revenue authorities and at column

No.9 one Sri Balaiah was shown as possessor and at column No.11 as

Poojari. And the 1

st

applicant came to know that the Poojari leased out

the land to the third parties for cultivation as they are unable to do the

same, when the poojari left the temple, the land has become

vacant. The respondents in the O.A. No.246 of 2019, tried to grab the

scheduled property and to construct a Church in the temple land by

encroaching upon the property and it is stated that as per the entries in

the RSR and in the Revenue Record, the RSR pertaining to Survey

No.161/A prima facie establishes proof of title. And further stated

that 1B register discloses that the property was in occupation of the

Poojari.

3. Hence, the O.A. is filed to declare the 2

nd

applicant-Khadarabada

Vighneswara Swamy Temple is title holder of the property. The said

O.A. was filed in the year 2019, now the present Writ of Prohibition is

6

filed that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. under the

provisions of the Act No.30 of 1987 and the O.A., is barred by principles

of res judicata and without any jurisdiction and consequently prayed to

set aside the proceedings in O.A. No.246 of 2019 pending on the file of

the Tribunal.

4. The present Writ of Prohibition is filed to set aside the O.A.

No.246 of 2019 on the file of the Tribunal on the grounds that the

petitioners have purchased the property on behalf of the M/s. Calvari

Temple Foundation through e-auction conducted by the State Bank of

India under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the property covered in

Survey No.161/A an extent of Ac.4.04 ½ cents situated at Venkayapalli

H/o. Rudraram village, Kurnool District, and the authorized officer

issued sale certificate in favour of the petitioner on 14.06.2019 and

possession was delivered to the petitioner and further asserted in the

affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the scheduled property

belongs to J. Balayya who got Ryotwari Pattas from Inam Deputy

Tahsildar in respect of the said lands covered in different survey

numbers including survey No.161/A total extent of Ac.6.68 cents

situated at Venkayapalli H/o. Rudraram Village, Kurnool District. As

per the fair Register of 1860 Inam, one Sri Tippanna was in possession

of an extent of Ac.14.84 cents in Sy.No.161/A & C, 169 and 193/A&C of

Venkapalle village, H/o Rudraram village. Thereafter, one Veeramma

7

relinquished her interest in the land through register document

dated 23.08.1918 in favour of Vusamma (Busamma) who is the wife of

Sankarappa who was an Archaka of the temple. The said Sankarappa

mortgaged the land on 02.07.1922 and later again on 12.06.1929. The

said Vusamma @ Busamma was survived by her daughter Smt.

Sivamma who is the mother of Balayya and the said Sivamma paid the

tax to the concerned authorities between1942-1969. After due enquiry,

the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Inam Deputy Tahsildar vide

proceedings 4649 of 1977 dated 14.04.1978 to issue Ryotwari Patta in

favour of J Balayya as it was held that he is in possession and

enjoyment of the scheduled land. After death of J. Balayya, his wife

J. Devamma sold the property in favour of V. Naveen S/o. V. Rambupal

Chowdary through the register document No.3891 of 2004, dated

15.04.2004. Thereafter, V. Naveen with an intention to sell the property

submitted a sale deed for registration, but the Sub Registrar, Kurnool

has rejected to register the said document on the ground that the land

is recorded as government land. Further stated that one Sri K. Rama

Chandra Reddy who is trustee of the Anjaneyaswamy Temple filed Writ

Petition No.3150 of 1978 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh challenging the orders of the RDO issued vide

proceedings No.4649 of 1977 dated 14.04.1978. The High Court after

hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition on 07.12.1982 and

8

confirmed the orders of the RDO and declared that J. Balayya is the

absolute owner of the subject property. After demise of J. Balayya, his

legal heirs sold the property to one Naveen through registered

document bearing No.3930 of 2004, dated 15.04.2004, accordingly,

patta was granted in favour of Sri V. Naveen, by the then Mandal

Revenue Officer, Kurnool.

5. Thereafter, the said Naveen also sold the property in favour of

Smt. Alle Prabhavathi, W/o. Alle Balla Nagi Reddy through register

documents an extent of Ac.2.00 cents out of Ac.4.04 ½ cents through

register document No.5498/2010 dated 06.06.2010, the remaining land

an extent of Ac.2.04 ½ cents to Sri Alle Venkata Jaya Kumar Reddy

S/o. Alle Balla Nagi Reddy through register document No.5499 of 2010

dated 06.06.2010. While so, one Pinakini Power Project (P) Limited

availed loan from State Bank of India by hypothecating its immovable

properties and the purchasers of the aforesaid property i.e. Smt. Alle

Prabha Nagireddy and Alle Venkata Jaya Kumar Reddy stood as

security for the loan availed. Later, the Pinakini Power Project (P)

Limited failed to discharge their loan, the banking authorities have

invoked the SARFAESI Act, approached the DRT Hyderabad for

auction of the properties and the 2

nd

petitioner-Calvary temple has

participated in the auction and declared as successful bidder and

obtained sale certificate in favour of the petitioner temple on 14.06.2019

9

and thereafter, the petitioners are in the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the property since the date of sale certificate

dated 14.06.2019. As such, the petitioners stated that as per the orders

in W.P. No.3150 of 1978, the O.A. No.246 of 2019 on the file of the

Tribunal is liable to be set aside as the 7

th

and 8

th

respondent temples

suppressing the real facts wantonly mislead the Tribunal and claimed

the title on the basis of RSR, hence, the property is treated as private

land and prayed to issue writ of prohibition and to set aside the O.A.

No.246 of 2019, on the file of the Tribunal.

6. Heard, Sri K. A. Narasimha, learned argued counsel for the

counsel on record Smt. M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani for writ petitioners and Sri

Nagaraju Nagooru, learned Government Pleader for Endowments.

7. Learned counsel Sri K.A. Narasimha, submitted that in the light of

the contentions raised in the preceding paragraphs, the respondents

have filed a frivolous and vexatious case, relying upon the judgments of

the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V.

Satyapal and another

1

, His Lordship Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in

the prefatory paragraph of the judgment it is observed that “The

pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the

Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch

frivolous and vexatious cases. And argued that the present writ

1

(1977) 4 SCC 467

10

petition is also frivolous and vexatious case basing on the narration of

the facts referred supra.

8. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Pawan Garg and others v. South Delhi Municipal

Corporation

2

for the proposition that mere entry in the list of properties

maintained by the authorities, cannot, by itself, constitute a valid proof

of title over the subject land. Undisputedly, the RSR constitutes prima

facie title over the land. As per the RSR, the land in Survey No.161/A is

temple land and the 43 register of the Act 30 of 1987 shows the land is

endowment property.

9. The counsel also places reliance of the order in W.P. No.30526

of 2012 and Batch in the case of Raavi Satish v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others and relied the observance of the learned Single

Judge. The learned Single Judge in the order has observed in the

following: “Even though the law is well settled on several aspects, the

Registering authorities have been again and again raising the same

objections for registration of the properties which were earlier rejected

by this court, as the spate of the litigation was continuing unabated.

10. And also relied on the order in W.P. No.23856 of 2020 in the

case of Mopuri Hemavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh for the

proposition that mere cryptic description of the entry in R.S.R. it

2

2026 SCC OnLine SC 644

11

cannot be concluded that the subject property is an Endowment

property. Without showing that the said property was registered as

endowment property in the register maintained under the Act 30 of

1987. On the aforesaid facts and law, learned arguing counsel for the

petitioner has vehemently argued and prayed to allow the Writ of

Prohibition.

11. And also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others v. Maharashtra Industrial

Development

3

wherein it is held that

right to property is available under

Article 300A of the Constitution of India, deprivation of property by

authority of law and no citizen should be deprived of the

property without authority of law and also relied on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and

others

4

for the very same proposition.

12. On the other hand the 8

th

respondent has filed counter affidavit

and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the

writ petition inter alia it is stated that the subject property of the writ

petition was included in the register prepared under Section 43 of Act,

1987 and the 3

rd

respondent issued certificate vide R.Dis

No.A6/3080/2020 Revenue dated 28.08.2021 and subject property was

3

(2013) 1 SCC 353

4

(2011) 10 SCC 404

12

also included in the prohibited list of properties under Section

22(A) (1)(C) of Registration Act, 1908. And the application filed by the

temple before the Tribunal is valid and legal. Once, any land is

included in the register prepared under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987

and under Section 45 of Act 30 of 1987, an application should be made

in this regard to make an entry in register of the Endowments Tribunal

under Section 46(3) of Act, 30 of 1987. It shall, until the contrary

established, be presumed that all particulars entered in the register

maintained under Section 43 are genuine, and also places reliance on

the order in W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2021. For deletion of entry in the

register of properties under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, has to

approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 and 47 of the Act

30 of 1987 and also relied on the order and judgment in W.A. No.888 of

2022 and batch, dated 23.09.2023 for the very same proposition.

13. In order to declare who is the owner of the property, adjudication

before the Tribunal is imperative and essential. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the Writ Petition.

14. At the outset, it is the primary contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the Revenue Divisional Officer in his

proceedings No.4693 of 1977, dated 14.04.1978 declared that one Sri

J. Balaiah has granted Roytwari Patta and also directed the

Inam Deputy Tahsildar to record the same. Against the said

13

proceedings, a writ petition has been filed before the erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.3150 of 1978 and the said Writ

Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.12.1982 and the

order of the Revenue Divisional Officer has attained finality and it has

been upheld by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Subsequently a Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of Sri J.

Balaiah. And also further argued that RSR is not a basis to include the

subject property in endowment property and adjudication on this issue

by the Tribunal is unwarranted and prayed to allow the Writ Petition by

quashing the proceedings in O.A. No.246 of 2019 on the file of the

Tribunal.

15. Basing upon the above contentions raised by the both the

counsel for the petitioners and respondents after giving my thoughtful

consideration the court give the following exposition

16. The relief of prohibition can be granted only (i) when

inferior Court or Tribunal proceeds to act without or excess of

jurisdiction. ii) Proceeds to act under law which itself ultra

vires or unconstitutional iii) Proceeds to act in violation of the rules of

natural justice or iv) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental

rights. The principles, which govern the exercise of such power, must

be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in

rarest of rare cases. Judicial discipline of the highest order has to

14

be exercised whilst issuing such writs. The writ jurisdiction is

original jurisdiction distinct from appellate jurisdiction. An appeal

cannot be allowed to be disguised in the form of a writ. In other

words, this power cannot be allowed to be used “as a cloak of an

appeal in disguise”. Lax use of such a power would impair

the dignity and integrity of the subordinate court and could also

leads to chaotic consequences. See the Judgment of Apex Court in

the case of Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and another vs.

Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu and others

5

.

17. The Supreme Court in the case of Narayana Chetty vs The

Income Tax Officer

6

held that writ of prohibition is primarily proves to

supervision his exercise of jurisdiction of the court is the lack of

jurisdiction must be apparent on the face of record for the issuance of

writ record. If there is complete absence of jurisdiction in the Court. If it

is required any further inspection either on the government of the writ of

prohibition needs to be refused.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of JACKY v. TINY alias

Antony and others

7

, held as follows:

“A petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the

Constitution can neither be entertained to decide the

5

(2003) 8 SCC134

6

AIR 1959 SC 213

7

(2014) 6 SCC 508

15

landlord-tenant dispute nor is it maintainable against a

private individual to determine an intense dispute including

the question whether one party is harassing the other party.

The High Court under Article 227 has the jurisdiction to

ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or

quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them

within the bounds of their authority but it was not the case of

Respondent 1 tenant that the order passed by the trial court

was without any jurisdiction or was so exercised exceeding

its jurisdiction. If a suit is not maintainable it was well within

the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in

appropriate proceedings but in no case power under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be exercised to

question a plaint.

19. Admittedly, in the present case, there are disputed facts involved,

and it is not the case of the writ petitioners that the Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application (OA). The petitioners

are seeking the relief to quash the O.A., by applying the principles

of res judicata. Under Section 11 of CPC that no Court shall try any suit

or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in a

former suit between the same parties, or between parties under

whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a

Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such

issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and

finally decided by such Court. Even to invoke Section 11

16

CPC, evidence has to be adduced. Hence, on this ground also, the

Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

20. With respect to plea of res judicata, it requires evidence to be let

in, in order to substantiate, that the judgment in the previous suit or

proceedings is barred from trying the same issue, which has already

been tried by the competent jurisdiction on an earlier occasion. When

there are triable issues, the issuance of writ of prohibition on the

principle of res judicata does not arise.

21. On perusal of entire material filed in support of the writ petition, it

appears that the petitioners herein filed application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Original Application (OA), which is

pending before the Tribunal. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that

the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain Original Application in view

of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above quoted

Judgment, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction of prohibition

to quash the proceedings in O.A. No.246 of 2019, on the file of the

Endowment Tribunal.

22. The above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court are

squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Even assuming

that a writ of prohibition cannot be issued and the present OA cannot be

quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and under 227 of

17

the Constitution of India. The dispute has to be decided by the

competent forum between the private parties, and not by this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere

with the proceedings before the Tribunal and to quash the proceedings

at this stage. It has to be decided by the tribunal. Therefore, this Court

need not to effect quash proceedings at this stage, as it is not the case

of the petitioners that the Tribunal is exercising without any jurisdiction

or it extending its jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition sans merit.

24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ

petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________

JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 01.07.2026

Harin

18

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

W.P.No. 9754 OF 2024

Date: 01-07-2026

Harin

Whether the order is:

Speaking Reasoned

Reportable Non-reportable