WP(PIL)/100/2026 of Patamsettti Venkata Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 22 July 2026

APHC010299292026

IN THE H Patamsettti Venkata Rama Vs. The State Of Andhra Prade

Reserved for orders on:

Pronounced on:

Whether only operative pronounced or whether pronounced:

CORAM : Hon’ble Hon’ble Present:- Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate(s) for Responden JAYASURYA, J:

Petitioner, Ex-Sarpa present writ petition purpor of respondents 1 to 6 in tak Ac.7.08 cents situated in arbitrary and violative of pro Religious Institutions and and for consequential d

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WP(PIL) No: 100 of 2026

Rao esh and others ...Res ********** 24.06.2026 23.07.2026 part of the judgment is full judgment is FULL The CHIEF JUSTICE Smt. LISA GILL Sri JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Mr. M.Kesava Rao nt(s): GP for Endowments; GP for Re Mr.Kappera Koteswara Rao, S Counsel for Endowments nch of Kadiapulanka Gram Panchaya rtedly in Public Interest seeking to decla king steps to protect land admeasuring a Survey No.353/2 of Kadiam Village ovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitab Endowments Act, 1987, opposed to pub direction for cancellation of Sale D HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026 Bench Sr.No:-27

...Petitioner spondent(s) evenue; Standing at, filed the are inaction an extent of as illegal, ble & Hindu blic interest eed dated

HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026

24.12.1994 and resumption of the said land in favour of 6th respondent- Temple.

2. Facts in brief as per the petitioner’s affidavit may be stated as follows:

Sri Bramaramba Malleswara Swamy temple-6th respondent is the absolute owner of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.7.08 cents in Survey No.353/2 of Kadiam Village, East Godavari District. 7th respondent- Educational Charitable Trust took the said land on lease in the year 1993. Subsequently, 7th respondent-Trust made a representation to the 6th respondent to purchase the said land for specific purpose of construction of building and provide facilities to accommodate a Co-operative Junior College at Kadiam, since the said college was not having any building of its own and operating in shift system in Z.P.School building on temporary basis. Trust- Board of the 6th respondent-Temple vide resolution dated 29.04.1993 decided to sell the land @ Rs.45,000/- per acre and requested Executive Officer of the Temple to secure permission / proceedings from the Commissioner of Endowments Department-3rd respondent. Thereafter, Government through G.O.Ms.No.1186 Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department dated 28.11.1994 accorded permission for alienation of land by specifying the sale consideration @ Rs.1,30,000/- per acre. 3rd respondent issued consequential proceedings dated 13.12.1994, pursuant to which Registered Sale Deed dated 24.12.1994 vide Document No.8220/1994 was executed in favour of the 7th respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the subject matter land was alienated with a specific purpose i.e., construction of

HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026

building for the Co-operative Junior College, sale transaction in such circumstances, amounts to a conditional sale in terms of provisions of Transfer of Property Act. He contended that in deviation and violation of the purpose for which subject matter land was alienated, 7th respondent is selling away the land in question and thereby the very object of alienation is defeated. Further, though respondents 4 and 6 instituted O.A.No.241 of 2007 before the A.P.Endowments Tribunal seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 24.12.1994, having suffered an order dated 24.12.2019 in W.P.No.17713 of 2017 whereby A.P.Endowments Tribunal was prohibited from proceeding into the enquiry in O.A.No.241 of 2007, no further steps have been taken atleast in terms of the observations made by the Writ Court to approach the competent Civil Court. He submitted that under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, only with a view to protect the interest of temple property, petitioner approached this Court and there is no personal interest involved in the matter. Accordingly, he urges to allow the writ petition.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition, as noted earlier, is inaction of respondents 1 to 6 in taking steps to protect the subject matter land, which was alienated to respondent No.7 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1186, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department. Admittedly the said G.O., was issued according permission to the 3rd respondent-Commissioner, Endowments Department for sale of land admeasuring Ac.7.08 cents in Survey No.353/2 of Kadiam Village belonging to 6th respondent-temple in favour of 7th respondent-

HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026

Charitable Trust @ Rs.1,30,000/- per acre as against Rs.45,000/- per acre recommended by the Trust-Board of the Temple vide Resolution dated 29.04.1993. Material on record would disclose that prior to alienation of the said land, objections were called for vide Notice R.C.No.M1/21234/1993 dated 29.03.1994. G.O.Ms.No.1186 dated 28.11.1994 and the Registered Sale Deed dated 24.12.1994 are not subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Be that as it may. As noted supra, seeking cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed dated 24.12.1994 and seeking eviction of 7th respondent-Trust from the above mentioned property and damages etc., Temple instituted O.A.No.241 of 2017. Similar contentions as in the present writ petition were raised before the Endowment Tribunal. 7th respondent filed a Writ of Prohibition vide W.P.No.17713 of 2017 seeking to prohibit the Tribunal from adjudicating O.A.No.241 of 2017. A Learned Judge of this Court vide Orders dated 24.12.2019 held that Civil Court is competent to grant relief of declaration or cancellation of Sale Deed and consequential relief including damages etc., but not Tribunal. While allowing the said writ petition Learned Judge opined that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, since such power is vested on the Civil Court. However, for the reasons best known to Endowment Authorities / Trust Board of Temple, no steps in the light of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge appears to have been taken, much less against the Judgment passed in the said writ petition.

HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026

6. It may be pertinent to state here that the very institution of O.A.No.241 of 2017 before the Endowments Tribunal by the Temple and other authorities would clearly indicate that the Temple indeed was interested in protecting its’ rights over the subject matter property. Thus, it is not a case of absolute inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 6 in taking steps to protect the subject land. Though the authorities concerned at one stage initiated legal action for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 24.12.1994, failed in their attempt to get it cancelled and obviously in view of the conclusions recorded by the learned Judge in W.P.No.17713 of 2017 with regard to Registered Sale Deed, not proceeded further. In any event, unless the Sale Deed dated 24.12.1994 is cancelled by a competent Civil Court, resumption of subject land in favour of the 6th respondent-Temple cannot be ordered.

7. In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed. However, this order would not preclude 6th respondent-Temple to take necessary action in terms of the observations in W.P.No.17713 of 2017 and in accordance with Law. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

(NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Date: 23rd July, 2026 BLV

HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026

Uploaded on : 23-07-2026 Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned

: Yes/No Whether the order is Reportable

: Yes/No

HCJ & NJSJ WP(PIL)_100_2026

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.P(PIL).No: 100 OF 2026 Date: 23.07.2026 BLV