1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.36028 of 2016

Between:

#Pantla Simhachalam, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

$Sri Venugopala Swamy Vari Devastanam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 13.03.2025

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.36028 of 2016

% 13.03.2025

# Between:

#Pantla Simhachalam, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

$Sri Venugopala Swamy Vari Devastanam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Vidya Sagar

! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

APHC010234282016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 36028/2016

Between:

Pantla Simhachalam, and Others

Sri Venugopala Swamy Vari Devastanam and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.

M VIDYASAGAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

2.

GP FOR PANCHAYAT

3.

ELEVATED AS JUDGE

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 writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of

MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Manager of Sri Venugopala

Swamy Vari Devastanam, Salur Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in directing

petitioners to handover vacant possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs 1.55

cents in Sy.No.162/3 at Salur Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without following the

due process of law and thus threatening to take over possession forcibly

arbitrary opposed to law and pass such other order ……

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 36028/2016

Pantla Simhachalam, and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Sri Venugopala Swamy Vari Devastanam and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

ELEVATED AS JUDGE

The Court made the following:

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

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

MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Manager of Sri Venugopala

Swamy Vari Devastanam, Salur Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in directing

petitioners to handover vacant possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs 1.55

cents in Sy.No.162/3 at Salur Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without following the

due process of law and thus threatening to take over possession forcibly as bad, illegal,

arbitrary opposed to law and pass such other order ……”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3310]

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

...PETITIONER(S)

...RESPONDENT(S)

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

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

MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Manager of Sri Venugopala

Swamy Vari Devastanam, Salur Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in directing the

petitioners to handover vacant possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs 1.55

cents in Sy.No.162/3 at Salur Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without following the

as bad, illegal,

4

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are in

uninterrupted possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.1-55 cents

in Sy.No.163/3 of Salur Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District belonging

to the 1

st

respondent devastanam. The 1

st

petitioner is in possession of the

said land uninterruptedly for the last 50 years in continuation of his ancestors

and their family were eke out their livelihood by cultivating these lands on

payment of yearly makthas. The schedule mentioned land is a land that is

rain-fed and only dry crops are grown like pulses, sunflower etc., It is stated

that the 2

nd

petitioner, who is now cultivating the said land jointly had come

into possession only in the year 2013, and thus, both of them are cultivating

the said land jointly by paying the maktha to the temple for cultivating the said

land. It is stated that the petitioners herein had paid a total amount of

Rs.13,000/- on 07-02-2016 which is also acknowledged by the Manager of the

1

st

respondent temple. The petitioners who were in uninterrupted possession

were earlier issued a notice in the year 2001 and at that point of time, the 1

st

petitioner was in possession and consequently the 1

st

petitioner also gave a

reply to the Executive Officer, after which, further action was dropped.

Consequently one more attempt was made by the 1

st

respondent in the year

2003 directing the 1

st

petitioner herein to vacate the schedule mentioned

property by making various allegations, thus, directing the 1

st

petitioner to

handover the vacant possession of the land, failing which, legal action will be

taken. Thereafter, the 1

st

petitioner, again replied back to the said notice, and

once more, further action was dropped by the Manager of the subject temple.

5

Having dropped further action once more, the 1

st

petitioner was issued a

notice bearing Re.No.Nil/2013, dated 16-12-2013, wherein, he was asked to

handover the vacant possession of the land, failing which, appropriate action

will be taken.

It is further stated that, after the issuance of the said notice neither any

proceedings of eviction were filed before the Endowments Tribunal nor there

was any such attempt to disturb the possession of the petitioner for the reason

that the petitioners herein continued payment of rents without any let and

hindrance and the custodians of the institution continued receiving the rent. It

is also stated that the 1

st

respondent also received maktha for the year 2016

also. But to the utter surprise instead of proceeding against the petitioners for

the possession of the land belonging to the temple, the 1

st

respondent is

threatening to take possession of the land illegally without issuing any notice

to the petitioners nor there was any such procedure that was undertaken to

take possession of the land by filing the due process of law. It is further

stated that, orally the 1

st

respondent now asked the petitioners to handover

the vacant possession of the lands and is threatening the petitioners that he

used force to take possession of the land, thus, by orally saying that, auction

has been held and the 4

th

respondent was the highest bidder and vacant

possession was ordered to be given to him. Neither the petitioners have any

knowledge about the auction nor they are in knowledge about any such

auction undertaken by the 1

st

respondent to lease out the lands. The whole

exercise looks to be an affair that is undertaken by the 1

st

respondent that an

6

understanding with the 4

th

respondent to dispossess the petitioners unlawfully

without resorting to any procedure contemplated under law. Hence, the

present writ petition.

3. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2016, has granted interim

direction that “the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners

from the subject land”.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1

st

respondent. While

denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that, it is false on

the petitioner to contend that the both the petitioners are cultivating the land

jointly and the second petitioner has come to possession of the land in the

year 2013. In fact the 2nd petitioner has entered into the land from

01.04.2015. Further the petitioners herein has forged the receipts and created

the old receipt numbering No.74 which is dated 04.12.2014 for an amount of

Rs.3000/- which was issued in favour of one P.Simhachalam (1st petitioner)

as receipt dated: 07.02.2016. In fact the temple reserves its right to take

appropriate action for forgery and cheating against the 1

st

petitioner. The

temple has only issued receipt No.88, dated: 06.02.2016 to the 2

nd

petitioner

for an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards part of maktha out of total maktha of

Rs.42,000/-. Hence the averment that Rs.13,000/- paid towards maktha is

false and concocted one and made for the sake of the writ petition. As such,

on the ground of misrepresentation of facts and filing false documents the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7

It is further stated in the counter that the 1st petitioner was issued notice

and reply notices were issued, but the 1

st

petitioner was never declared as

landless poor person and he was evicted public auction held on 30.12.2014

and the 2

nd

petitioner was put into possession from 01.04.2015 and the 1

st

petitioner was no where concerned and never cultivated the land with the 2nd

petitioner, hence this averment is denied and the petitioner do not have any

right to seek any continuation in the land belonging to the temple. It is further

stated that the temple has issued notice to the 1st petitioner on 16.12.2013 to

vacate the land and handover the same which was not done by the 1st

petitioner as his lease period also expired. The temple went ahead and issued

auction notification and conducted auction on 30.12.2014 and the 2nd

petitioner became the highest bidder for one year from 01.04.2015 to

31.03.2016. The maktha received from the 2nd petitioner was in three

installments i.e.,

Receipt No.76, dated: 30.12.2014 Rs.2000/-

Receipt No.77, dated: 30.12.2014 Rs.15,000/-

Receipt No.83, dated: 06.02.2016 Rs. 10,000/-

Total Rs.27,000/-

Arrears Rs.15,000/-

Main Total Rs.42,000/-

It is further stated that it is false on the part of the petitioners to contend

that 1st respondent is threatening to take possession illegally and orally asked

the petitioners to handover the vacant possession and orally saying auction

has been held and possession of the vacant land is handed over to the

8

highest bidder is false concocted one and made for the sake of the writ

petitioner. Infact the temple has issued auction notification dated: 16.08.2016

and distributed the pamphlets, published by way of beat of tom-tom in Salur

Town and same is attested by the Saluru 16th, 21st, 26th, 27th, 29th ward

counselors. Hence it is false on the petitioners to contend that there is no

knowledge of the auction to the petitioners. The question of evicting the

petitioners resorting to the procedure will not arise as the lease of the 2nd

petitioner has come to an end and once the lease is expired as per the auction

conditions no tenant will have right to continue in the land as per Sec. 82 of

Act 30/87. Hence there is no illegality in conducting the auction on 29.08.2016

and confirming the same on 15.10.2016.

5. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for

the respondents.

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

contents made in the petition, submits that, even though the 1

st

respondent

temple received maktha for the year 20016, instead of proceeding against the

petitioners for the possession of the land belonging to the temple the 1

st

respondent is threatening to take possession of the land illegally without

issuing any notice to the petitioners nor there was any such procedure that

was undertake to take possession of the land by following due process of law.

He further submits that, Section 83 of the Endowments Act clearly holds that

once when a tenant in possession completes its period of lease in the event of

9

his continuation in the schedule mentioned lands belonging to the institution

the appropriate procedure is to file an application before the Endowments

Tribunal to evict the tenants by conducting a full fledged trial thus come into a

conclusion that he is an encroacher, but any attempt to dispossess the

petitioners herein without resorting to the said procedure is ex-facie illegal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

Government having issued G.O.Ms.No.379 which also speaks about

cultivating tenants and landless poor persons had brought into force, this

G.O., which also under Rule.11 indicates the way in which the public auction

has to be conducted. In the present case, there is no such auction notice. In

addition to the same, the Government has also come forward with

G.O.Ms.No.426, dated 09-11-2015 wherein as per the amendment effected

under Rule 15, read with (1) which speaks that the Executive Authority was

issued a notice in Form-A appended to these rules to the occupier and in such

case with a demand to vacate and handover the possession of the property. is

also indicated that in the event of the person i.e., the occupier failing to

handover possession of the property he shall be evicted by invoking the

provisions of Sec.84 and 86. Even this rule also runs contrary to the statutory

provisions of the Endowments Act as prescribed in Sec.83 and the rule so

made by this G.O.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, even taking

into consideration this aspect, the 1

st

respondent cannot resort to any other

procedure contemplated under law excepting invoking Sec.83 of the Act. He

10

further submits that if the action of the 1st respondent is allowed to continue

and the possession of the land is taken, the petitioners would suffer

irreparable loss and injury and would be deprived of their livelihood.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass

appropriate orders.

9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader has also while reiterating

the contents made in the counter affidavit and submits that the question of

evicting the petitioners by filing Sec. 83 petition does not arise once the lease

is expired as per the lease approval orders no tenant will have right to remain

in possession. Having agreed to the same affixed his signature wherein she

has agreed that the lease period is only for a period of one year which is from

01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. As such, the petitioner will not have any right after

31.03.2016. Hence the question of evicting by summary proceedings does not

arise. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the temple has

followed the due process as per rules framed under GOMS.No.379 and

followed the Rule-11 and issued auction notification. The GOMS.No.426,

dated 09.11.2015 is pertaining to the non agricultural lease and the same is

not applicable to the case of the petitioners herein. Hence the question of

issuing the notice under Rule-15 does not arise. Learned Government

Pleader further submits that the 2nd petitioner herein is only a tenant whose

lease has expired and temple has conducted auction and handed over the

possession to the highest bidder as such, the question of encroacher and

filing the Sec. 83 procedure does not arise. Learned Government Pleader

11

mainly contended that the 4th respondent who is highest bidder is cultivating

the land much prior to the issuance of interim orders of this Hon'ble Court as

such, the writ petition has become infructuous, as such, the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed.

10. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and on

perusing the material on record, this Court is of the view that, this Court has

already granted interim order on 25.10.2016. Further, after expiry of lease

period of the petitioners, the respondents have conducted auction and the 4

th

respondent has become highest bidder. As stated by learned Government

Pleader that the 4

th

respondent, who is highest bidder is now cultivating the

land much prior to the issuance of interim order of this Court. So in view of the

above, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of

merits. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is

liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 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 : 13 -03-2025

Gvl

12

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITON No.36028 of 2016

Date : 13.03.2025

Gvl