Date of reserved for orders : 14.07.2026

Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2026

Date of uploading : 21.07.2026

APHC010566122016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3330]

TUESDAY, THE 21

ST

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.35270 of 2016

Between:

1. LAKKIREDDY KRUPAVAR REDDY,, S/O. LATE SIVARANGA

REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,' R/O.

CHINNAPASUPULA VILLAGE, PEDDAMANDIUM MAN DAL,

Y.S.R.DISTRICT.

2. LAKKIREDDY PULLA REDDY,, S/O. LATE SIVARANGA REDDY,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RIO.

CHINNAPASUPULA VILLAGE, PEDDAMARIDIUM'MANDAL,

Y.S.R.DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRI NCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU

REVENUE DIVISION, JAMMALAMADUGU, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

4. THE TAHASILDAR, PEDDAMU DIAM MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,

ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, Y.S.R. DISTRICT.

6. INSPECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS ENDOWMENTS

DEPARTMENT, PRODDATUR, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.

7. SRI CHENNA KESHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE, CHINNAPASUPU LA

VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIAM MANDAL, Y.S .R DISTRICT,

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

Register under Section 43 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 prepared by the respondent

No.6 and entering the land in an extent of Ac. 3.12 cents in Sy.No.44/2,

Ac.7.1l cents in Sy.No.54/2 and Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.61 . of

Chinnapasupula Village, Peddamudiam Mandal, Y.S.R District, belong

to the petitioners, in the said Register as without power or authority,

colorable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the A.P.

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987

and settled principles of legal position, apart from being violative of

fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners

under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and

consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders

as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. V R REDDY KOVVURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

3. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR R AO

WRIT PETITION No.35270 of 2016

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 6

th

respondent in registering the property in an extent of Acs.3.12 cents in

Sy.No.44/2, Acs.7.11 cents in Sy.No.54/2 and Acs.1.28 cents in

Sy.No.61 of Chinnapasupula Village, Peddamudiam Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District, certificate under Section 43(6) of the Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 30 of 1987’), as the 6

th

respondent is

not the authority to register the land as endowment property.

2. The 6

th

respondent issued ‘certificate of registration’ as endowed

property under sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987,

wherein the land of the petitioners has been certified as endowed land

in the aforesaid survey numbers. Before issuing certificate under

Section 43(6) of the Act 30 of 1987, the respondents have to follow the

procedure as stipulated in sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of

1987 and the above said land was purchased through registered sale

deed dated 15.11.1948 registered as Doc.No.2241/1948 and through a

registered sale deed dated 08.09.1933 registered as Doc.No.1683/

4

1933. Since the date of purchase, the great grandfather and their

successor have been in possession and enjoyment of the land. When

the 7

th

respondent issued an auction notice dated 13.08.2014, the writ

petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.23841 of 2014 for grant of leasehold

rights along with some other land owners, before the erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh and the auction notice was stayed by the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioners’ name was

mutated in the revenue records and the certificate of registration should

be entered into the register after conducting an enquiry under sub-

section (5) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987. Hence, prayed to

declare the certificate issued under sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the

Act 30 of 1987, as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, prayed to

delete the subject land from sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the Act 30

of 1987.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the

judgment of this Court in Nallamothu Veeraiah and others Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments)

Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and

others reported in 2022 (1) ALT 229 (AP), for the proposition that under

Section 43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987 mandates an enquiry and in the

5

present case, as no enquiry was conducted, no notice was issued.

Hence, argued that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the

present facts of the case.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referring to referring to Section

43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987 has allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside

the impugned proceedings therein and directed the respondents to

consider any further action only after issuing necessary notices to the

petitioners and all such other persons having interest in the temple, by

way of personal notice and by way of publication in the news paper and

any further decision taken by the Commissioner shall only be after

giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and persons

having interest, as to why the temple should not be registered and what

are the details or alterations to such details that need to be entered

under Section 43(4) of the Act 30 of 1987 holding that Section 43(5) of

the Act 30 of 1987 mandates the same

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on an order dated

09.12.2013 in W.P.No.29506 of 2013, wherein a learned Single Judge

of the erstwhile High Court held that mere entry in the RSR does not

constitute evidence of title to the property and even otherwise, when the

said RSR does not show that the temple is the pattadar or inamdar.

6

6. Learned counsel also relied on the order of this Court in

W.P.No.23856 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021 for the very same proposition

and also argued that when the respondent authorities have issued a

certificate without conducting enquiry as contemplated under the

provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, Writ

Petition is maintainable and there is no need to approach the Tribunal

under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 as non-consideration of the

provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 amounts to violation of principles of

natural justice. Hence, denied the arguments of the respondents’

counsel about the maintainability of the writ petition

7. The 7

th

respondent – Executive Officer has filed counter affidavit

and it is asserted that the 7

th

respondent Temple is oldest temple

governed by the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987. Among other

properties, the 7

th

respondent temple is having landed property of

Acs.3.12 cents in Sy.No.44/2, Acs.7.11 cents in Sy.No.54/2, Acs.1.28

cents in Sy.No.61 of Chinnapasupula Village, Peddamudiam Mandal,

YSR Kadapa District and the revenue record, such as, RSR, Adangal

and 1B register reflects the name of the Manager for the time being of

Sri Chenna Kesava Swamy Temple. The pattadar passbooks and title

deed produced by the petitioners are non-est in the eye of law and they

7

have been issued to the petitioners without any notice to the temple at

any point of time by the competent authority and the list the properties

of the 7

th

respondent were communicated to the Sub-Registrar through

proper channel as per Annexure-III of Section 22-A(1) of the

Registration Act and as such all steps have been taken to protect the

properties of the institution from encroachers. If at all, the petitioners

are disputing the title over the property, the remedy of the petitioners is

to approach the Tribunal constituted under Section 87 of the Act 30 of

1987.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the 7

th

respondent would submit

that the remedy of the petitioners is before the Endowment Tribunal and

relied on the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL)

No.70 of 2022 dated 29.03.2023, wherein it is held that once an entry is

made in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987,

the remedy available for the aggrieved party is to approach the A.P.

Endowments Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for the 7

th

respondent also relied judgment in

W.A.Nos.888 and 899 of 2022 dated 23.09.2023, of a Division Bench of

this Court after considering Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, held that

once the property has been registered and brought on the register

8

maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, the writ Court

cannot direct the registration of the property in the name of the

petitioners in the light of the existence of Section 22-A of the

Registration Act and the remedy is to approach the Tribunal constituted

under the Endowments Act as per Section 87(c) of the Endowments Act

and the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to determine whether any

property is an endowment, if so, whether it is a charitable endowment or

a religious endowment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition and

to direct the writ petitioners herein to invoke the appropriate alternative

remedy available under law.

10. After considering the arguments and perusing the material

available on record and after giving anxious consideration to the

arguments that advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and

as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 7

th

respondent, this

Court is of the view that Section 43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987 envisages

or stipulates that an enquiry has to be conducted before registering and

issuing a certificate under Section 46 of the Act 30 of 1987. The

relevant provision is hereby extracted for the benefit of proper disposal

of the writ petition.

9

11. The procedure to be followed for registration/publication of

institutions under the Endowments Act, 1987 can be summed up as

follows:

(A) (i) where an application is made under Section 43(4) of the

Act, 1987, the registering authority shall issue personal notice,

to such persons having interest as are within the knowledge of

the registering authority and also publish a notice in the local

newspapers giving, all persons having interest in the institution,

an opportunity to put-forth their views and objections.

(ii) After affording an adequate opportunity to all such persons,

the registering authority shall take a decision whether the

institution has to be registered or not. If a decision is taken to

register the institution, the registering authority shall register the

same after filling in all the necessary details required under

Section 43(4) of the Act.

(B) Where the registration is carried out under Section 44 of the

Act, the following procedure shall be followed:

(i) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner either suo motu

or on such information that is given to him, shall give a report to

the Commissioner, Endowments detailing the institution that

requires to be registered and the names of the person or

persons, who have failed to approach the competent

Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Section 43 of the

Act.

(ii) Upon such information being given by the Assistant

Commissioner, or being received from any other source, the

10

Commissioner shall issue notices under Form-II to all persons,

who are in default, to file an application for registration within

the time given in the notice.

(iii) The Commissioner shall also issue notices to all persons

having interest in the institution either by way of personal notice

or by way of publication of the notice in the local news papers

or both, giving opportunity to such persons to put-forth their

views and objections on the aspect of registration. as well as

the details which are to be contained under Section 43(4) of the

Act.

(iv) The Trustees, persons in management and/or the persons

having interest are entitled to file their objections in relation to

the question of whether the said Institution is liable to be

registered and/or the details that are required to be included in

the register under Section 43 of the Act. They may also place

such material as they deem necessary before the

Commissioner. After giving adequate opportunity for all such

objections to be filed, the Commissioner after considering these

objections and material submitted by the objectors and after

such enquiry as may be deemed fit, shall take a decision as to

whether the institution is to be registered or not and the details

that need to be registered under Section 43(4) of the Act.

(v) In the event of the Commissioner determining that the

institution requires to be registered, he shall issue directions to

the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to register the

institution along with the details that need to be entered in the

register under Section 43(4) of the Act.

11

(vi) Upon such instructions being received, Jurisdictional

Assistant Commissioner shall register the institution duly

entering of the details required under Section 43(4) of the Act.

This process shall be done at the cost of the institution.

(C) After such registration, the income of the institution is to be

assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987.

(D) Basing upon the quantum of income assessed under

Section 65 of the Act, 1987, the institution is to be published by

the appropriate authority on the basis of the calculation done

according to the income of the institution.

12. As provided under Section 43(4) of the Act 30 of 1987, the

procedure to be followed for issuing a registration certificate is detailed

in Section 43(6).

13. Admittedly, either in the counter affidavit or the arguments

presented by the 7

th

respondent have not denied the petitioners’

contention that no notice was issued or any enquiry was conducted as

stipulated under Section 43(5) of the Act 30 of 1987. Section 43(5) of

the Act 30 of 1987 mandates that an enquiry be held, providing all

interested persons the opportunity to raise relevant issues before the

Assistant Commissioner. Moreover, it is admitted that the petitioners

are in the possession of the subject property as on today.

12

14. The Apex Court in the case of Union Of India And Another vs

W.N. Chadha reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260, analysed a detailed

discussion regarding the rule of audi alteram partem, referencing

several judgments. The relevant paragraphs are set out below:

“Only in case where a public officer has got such a power,

the question of 'fair play in action' will be attracted. This rule

was explained by Lord Denning M.R. in Schmidt v.

Secretary of State for Home Affairs 1969 (2) Chancery

Division 149, stating that "where a public officer has power

to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general

principle is that it has not to be done without his being given

an opportunity of being heard and of making

representations on his own behalf".

15. The rule of audi alteram partem is not attracted unless the

impugned order is shown to have deprived a person of his liberty or his

property. In the present case, it has to be seen whether such

consequences have arisen from the impugned GO.

16. The above explanation is quoted in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of

India & Anr reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248.

17. The rule of audi alteram partem is a rule of justice and its

application is excluded where the rule will itself lead to injustice. In A.S.

13

de Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4

th

Ed. at page 184,

it is stated that in administrative law, a prima facie right to prior notice

and opportunity to be heard may be held to be excluded by implication

in the presence of some factors, singly or in combination with another.

Those special factors are mentioned under items (1) to (10) under the

heading "Exclusion of the audi alteram partem rule'.

18. Thus, there is exclusion of the application of audi alteram partem

rule to cases where nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an

opportunity to present and meet a case. This rule cannot be applied to

defeat the ends of justice or to make the law 'lifeless, absurd, stultifying

and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the

situation' and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional

circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands.

19. The Division Bench judgments cited by the 7

th

respondent pertain

to the removal of land from the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of

the Registration Act. However, the Registration Department has

classified the property therein in the prohibited list on the ground that it

is temple land, as certified under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987. The facts

there are not similar and it is distinguishable from the present case,

14

which concerns the registration of land specifically under Section 43 of

Act 30 of 1987.

20. In light of the above, the respondents are directed to issue notice

to the petitioners who are affected parties who are having an interest in

the subject property before granting a registration certificate under

Section 43(6) of Act 30 of 1987. Further action of the respondents is

only after following the procedure as outlined in Section 43 of the Act 30

of 1987. Any further decision is taken by the Commissioner, it shall only

after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the

persons having interest as to why the property should not be treated as

endowed property.

21. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

__________________________________

JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 21.07.2026

siva

15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.35270 of 2016

Date: 21.07.2021

siva