WP/10450/2009 of Sri Ganesh Seva Sangham (Regd. No.137/1980), Vs The Government of A.P., Rep by its Prl. Secretary, on 31 December 2024

1. MS Prakasha Rao, secretai7,S/o. Ramaswami NaiduRepresented by Sri Ganesh Seva SanagamPlot No.223, Male, Age 58, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligrainapuram(PU)Visakhapatnain-24.2.GjSanni Babu,PresidentS/o. Late AppaunaRepresented by Sri Ganesh Seva Sangan;Plot No.22b, Male, Age 68, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(l (J)Visakhapatnani-24.3.K. Veerreddy, Vice PresidentS/o. Late Somi Reddy9Represented by Sri Ganesh Seva SangamPlotNo. 180, Male, Age 57, Phase IIISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.4.K. Venkata Raghunath Rao,S/o. Ranga RaoPlot No. 203, Male, Age 35, Phase 1SGSSM,Behind Port High School, Sabgramapurani(PO)Visalchapatnam-24.5.Kolli SrideviW/o. K.S.Naidu (Constable)D.No. 172, Female, Age 33, Plot No.33, Phase ISGSSM,BehindPort High School, Saligraniapuram(PO.)Visakhapatnam-24.6. Pentakota jogeeswari\V/o. Late SanyasiFemale,Age 50, Plot No.l72, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Sabgramapui am(l tJ)Visakhapatnam-24.7. Doddi RavichandraS/o. Rama RaoMale, Age 33, Plot No.39, Phase ISGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.8. Ginni PadmavathiW/o. Subba ReddyIvNVRG?japa\?nlgmr;s\'li^^Visakhapatnam-24.

-J

18. Kandipappu Marj’ Sliecia RaniW/o. BabjiFemale, Age 29, Plot No. 18, Phase ISGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.19. Challa Venkata SrinivasS/o. Sanyasi NaiduMale, Age 34, Plot No.2, Phase ISGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.20. Karri VecrachariS/o. Late Papa RaoMale, Age 60, Plot No.69, Phase HSVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(PO)VisakIiapatnam-24.21. Karri Radha RaniW/o. Safyanarayana ReddyFemale, Age 45, Plot No. 241, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligrainapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.22. Madeti Uma RaniD/o. Chendrasekhara RaoFemale, Age 21, Plot No. 234, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram{PO)Visakhapatnam-24.23. Uppala Bhonoji RaoS/o. Surya Prakasa RaoMale, Age 62, Plot No. 248, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapurani(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.24. Rongali SatyamS/o. SambunaiduMale, Age 57, Plot No. 189, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,SaIigramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnain-24.25. Tadangi Krishnaq Kalika PrasadS/o. Late TV Subba RaoMale, Age 54, Plot No. 253, Phase 11SVN\'R Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapurain(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.26. Bodanki Rama DeviW/o. AmarnathFemale, Age 32, Plot No. 185, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(PO)Visakliapatnam-24.27. Pitani ChinnaS/o. KondayyaMale, Age 42, Plot No. 270B, Phase HSVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Sallgramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.

28. Somireddy Malibabu

S/o. Appalaswamy

29. AkuIa Siva Sankara V.,7- Satyanao’ana MurthyMale, Age 50, Plot No.

Venkateswara Rao

I, Phase II

30. Tummala Trinadha RaoS/o. Appa RaoMale, Age 43, Plot No.26,SGSS]VI,Behind Port Hi<d1 School, Saligramivtsakliapatnam-24.

Phase I^

1 School, Saligrami>Puram(PO)

*^='"garuthalliW/o. Appa RaovS Im’,'"si- Scl,o«],vi.s.iivIiapatnam-24.

Sa ligra in a p u ra in (PO)

32 Ambati Radha KrishnaRaniW/o. SubrahnianyamJj^e,Age29,PIotNo.n?. Phase IIVisakhap^S-24."^®‘*'’’®‘'''^''‘‘'"^P“''‘»‘"fPO)

33. Gosula BhadralakshmiW/o. Jagannadha RaoJ'^^'‘=’Age48,PlotNo.J07, Phase II

34.

34. Mallidi Jaggi ReddyS/o. Rama Krishna ReddyS/o. Rama Krishna Reddy

35. T. SaradaD/o. Satrughnudu

178, Phase II

36. B. SasikalaW/o. SatrughnuduAge 62, Plot No.150, Phase IIVisakhap^?iam.2i"'*®^'‘’^"^

47. Lavcti Samudrarn

lS/o. Late MusalaiahMale, Age 65, Plot No. 76, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligrainapui am(PO)Visaldiapatnam-24.Male, Age 65, Plot No. 76, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligrainapui am(PO)Visaldiapatnam-24.

48. Kavali Adilakshini

W/o. KondaiahFemale, Age 35, Pjot No. 78B, Phase USVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligraniapuram{PO)Visakhapatnam-24,Female, Age 35, Pjot No. 78B, Phase USVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligraniapuram{PO)Visakhapatnam-24,

49. Anala NookalammaW/o. Late Appa RaoFemale, Age 52, Plot No. 21, Phase 1SGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visaldiapatnam-24.W/o. Late Appa RaoFemale, Age 52, Plot No. 21, Phase 1SGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visaldiapatnam-24.

50. Tummala Ramana

S/o. Late RamuluMale, Age 42, PlotNo.41, PhaseISGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.Male, Age 42, PlotNo.41, PhaseISGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.

51. Rajana Sanyasi Rao

S/o. Late PaiditalliMale, Age 39, PlotNo.7B, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapurani(PO)Visaldiapatnam-24,Male, Age 39, PlotNo.7B, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapurani(PO)Visaldiapatnam-24,

52. Donga VaralakshmiW/o. Appa RaoFemale, Age 30, Plot No. 42, Phase 1SGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnani-24.W/o. Appa RaoFemale, Age 30, Plot No. 42, Phase 1SGSSM,Behind Port High School, Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnani-24.

53. Sagi Ramachandra RajuS/o. Venkatapathi RajuMale, Age 54, Plot No.l27, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(PO)Visakliapatnam-24.S/o. Venkatapathi RajuMale, Age 54, Plot No.l27, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(PO)Visakliapatnam-24.

54. Gadepalli Satyasiva SundarS/o. Late Narsinga RaoMale, Age 37, Plot No.l2.5A, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(P())Visakhapatnam-24.S/o. Late Narsinga RaoMale, Age 37, Plot No.l2.5A, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(P())Visakhapatnam-24.

55. Gadepalli BrahmajiS/o. Late Narsinga RaoMate, Age 33, Plot No.l25B, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligcaxnapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.S/o. Late Narsinga RaoMate, Age 33, Plot No.l25B, Phase 11SVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligcaxnapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.

56. Battina Appala NarasammaW/o. Late DeniuduFemale, Age 55, Plot No. I63A, Pha.se IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,SaIigramapuram(PC))Visakhapatnam-24.

57. Battina Appa RaoS/o. Late DemuduMale, Age 35, Plot No. 163B, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(P())Visakkapatnam-24.

58. Kolli VonumuluS/o. Late AppannaMale, Age 38, PlotNo. 82A, Phase IISVNVR Gajapathi nagar,Saligramapuram(PO)Visakhapatnam-24.

108aged 40 Yrs.,School,Sa.gr,.ap.ra.?p'cl;; vSpf."°"®-Sri Valluri Srihari Ganapathi Rao/■School, Saligramapuram (PO)SGSSM, BehindPort HighSri Sathi Sathyavani s/ouSriiark'^^^®®'"‘behind Port Higi?sch^®1^'■®’Sal,gramapuram(PO), Visakhapatnam 2?’I nagar,)0M.^/00\ 0 /vaJliUVx^^ 0J./flj ^■NO. u ^C(P^J) l/^ (x.tA>a)(^Nf2,Z/fAnd1- TheGovernmentof a Prep.byitsPr|.Endowments Department,‘"Secretary,Secretariat, Hyderabad.2. The Commissionerof Endowments, Govt.of A.P, Hyderabad.3. The Executive OfficerDevasthana m,4.ThecommissionerofGreaterVisakhapatnam.VisakhaMunicipality,•■■■Respondents.c, .0/'I-cf 3s/i^' ^a^—An

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India[is][ filed][ praying]thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed[therewith,][ the][ High]Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction[more][ particularly]oneinthenatureofwritof mandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondents in obstructing the structures and repairs[being][ made][ by][ the]petitionersi.e.Sri Ganesh Seva Sangham,intheir respectiveplotsinSy.No.275 of Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary,[violative][ of]fundamental rights and consequently issue directions[to][ the][ respondents][ to]restrain themselves frominterferingwithanykindof theconstructionactivities of the petitioners in their plots.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K GANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI NVS PRASADA VARMA

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M RAVINDRANATH[REDDY]WRIT PETITION NO: 10450 OF 2009

Between:

Sri Ganesh Seva Sangham (Regd. No.137/1980), SVNVR[Gajapathinagar](Ganesh Nagar) Salaramapuram Po, Visakhapatnam, Rep[by]its SecretaryM.S. Prakasha Rao, S/o. Ramaswami Naidu, Aged 60, R/o.Plot No. 181,SVNVR Gajapathi Nagar, Saligramapuram (PO), Visakhapatnam-[24]

AND

1. The Governmentof A.P.,Rep byitsPrI.Secretary,EndowmentsDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P.,[Hyderabad.]3. TheExecutiveOfficer,SriVarahaLaxmiNarasimhaSwamy,Devasthanam, Simhachalafn, Visakhapatnam District.3. TheExecutiveOfficer,SriVarahaLaxmiNarasimhaSwamy,Devasthanam, Simhachalafn, Visakhapatnam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India is filed prayingaffidavit filed therewith, the Highthat in the circumstances statedin thedirection, more particularlyCourt may be pleased to issue a writ, order oronein the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring theactionoftherespondent No.3, in issuing the impugned Memo in Rc.No.C1/5557/87-2,dated 26.03.2009 and causing interference in the peaceful[possession][ and]Sy.No.275ofenjoymentof thepetitioner Sanghamintheirlandinarbitrary, violative of fundamentaladavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam asrights andconsequently set aside the impugned memo deciaringthe sameas null and void andvoid with directions to the respondents to restrain[of][ the]petitioners in their plots.

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K GANl REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No-3: NVS PRASADA VARMA

WRIT PETITION NO: 7300 OF 2017

Between:

SriGandeti Rambabu, S/o.Jagannadham, Aged about 38 years,[Occ;][ Pravite]EmployeeR/o.D.No.17-50/1GaneshNagar,AdavivaramvillageVisakapatnam, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. TheStateofAndhraPradeshRep.byitsPrincipalSecretary,Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.2. The A.P. Endowments Tribunal Rep.by its administrator,[at][ Pedakakani]Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.

3. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Dept., Visakhapatam,[A.P.]

4. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep, by itsExecutive Officer, Visakhapatnam

...RESPONDENTS^

Petition under Article 226 6fthe Constitution of India is filed prayingthatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction moreparticularly onein the nature of writ of certiorari callingfor the recordspertainingtoandinconnectionwiththeOrderdated25-10-2016inO.A.No.347of2015onthefileoftheA.P.EndowmentsTribunal,Pedakakani, GunturDistrict, A.P. and seekingcertioraricallingfor therecords pertaining to andin connection with the order anddecree dated25-10-2016 in O.A.No.347 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal,Pedakakani, Guntur District and quash the same and declare the order ofthe 2nd Respondent Tribunal as null and void, without jurisdiction, contrarytotheprocedurecontemplatedundertheA.P.CharitableandHinduReligious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and also contrary to theorder and decree passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.1342 9/2009in W.P.No.10450 of 2009, dated 28-05-2009 and W.P.No.8517 of 2009inW.P.No.6513 of 2009, dated 06-03-2009 in the interest of justice* ^

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fWPMP. NO: 8978 OF 20171

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the operation of the Order and decree passed in O.A.No. 347 of 2015 dated 25-10-2016 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal,Pedakakani, Guntur District pending disposal of the above writ petition andfurther restrain the respondent No. 4 in interfering with the possession of thepetitioner's property bearing plot No. 178 to an extent of 166.66 sq. yds. witha RCC slabbedhouse,situatedinS.No.275, GaneshNagar Colony, Saligrama PuramPost,AdavivaramVillage,ChinaGadiliMandalamVisakhapatnam District.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for the Respondent No,4: SRI N V S PRASAD VARMA

WRIT PETITION NO: 7309 OF 2017

Between:

Smt.PolavarapuPrabhavathi,W/o.RameshAgedabout47yearsOcc;EmployeeR/o.D.No.17-257GaneshSevaSanghamPlotNo.259,Adavivaram village, Chinagadili Mandalam, Visakapatnam,[A.P.]

...PETITIONER^

AND

1. TheStateofAndhraPradesh,Rep.byitsPrincipalSecretary,Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Rep.by its administrator,[at][ Pedakakani]Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.

3. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Dept., Visakhapatam,[A.P.]

4. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy, Vari Devasthanam, Rep.by[ its]Executive Officer, VisakhapatnamExecutive Officer, Visakhapatnam

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed prayingthatin the circumstances statedin theaffidavit filed therewith,the HighCourt may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order[or][ direction][ more]particularly onein the nature of writ of certiorari[calling]for the recordspertaining to and in connection with the Order and[decree][ dated][ 20-12-2016]inO.A.No.337of 2015onthefileof theA.P.EndowmentsTribunal,Pedakakani, GunturDistrict,A.P.andseekingcertioraricallingforthe

records pertaining to andim connection with the order and decree dated20-12-2016 in O.A.No.337 of 2015 on the file of A.P. Endowments TribunalPedakakani, Guntur District and gnash the same and declare the order ofthe 2nd Respondent Tribunal as null and void, without jurisdiction, contraryto the procedure contemplated under the A.P. CharitableandHinduReligious Institutions and EndowmentsAct 1987 and also contrary to theorderpassedbythisHon'bleCourtinW.P.M.P.No.13429/2009inW.P.No.10450 of 2009, dated 28-05-2009 and W.P.No.8517of 2009inW.P.No.6513 of 2009, dated 06-03-2009 in the interest of justice.

LA. NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP NQ; 8988 np 7n-i7)

Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filediin support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the operation of the Order and decreepassedinO.A.No. 337 of 2015 dated 20-12-2016on thefile of A.P.EndowmentsTribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur Districtpending disposal of the above writpetition and further restrain the respondent No.4in interfering with thepossession of the petitioner's property bearing plot No.259to an extent of106.94 Sq.Ydswitha RCC slabbed house, situatedin S.No.275/partAdavivaram village, China Gadili Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. _

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI N V S PRASAD VARMA

WRIT PETITION NO: 23547 r>F 9n>i7

Between:

CH Eswar Rao Polisetty, S/o.Venkata Swamy Aged about 42 years OccPosT S VN Vp”g "“fh®Gariesh Nagar, SaligramapuramPost, S.V.N.V.P. Gajapathi Nagar, Adavivaram village,A.P. Visakapatnam District

AND

...PETITIONER

PnHr°!'^®P '=yitePrincipalSecretaryDistricTTp DpPPrtment. Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi[Guntu;]Municipal,Corporation,Rep.byitsDistricTTp DpPPrtment. Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi[Guntu;]Municipal,Corporation,Rep.byitsCommissioner, Visakhapatnam Urban,Visakhapatnam District A.P.Visakhapatnam District A.P.

3. The Asst. Commissioner, EndowmentsDept., Visakhapatam, A.P.Dept., Visakhapatam, A.P.

4. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha SwamyVan, Devasthanam, Rep.by itsVan, Devasthanam, Rep.by itsExecutive Officer, Visakhapatnam

...RESPONDENTS^

Pe rtion under Article 22rof the Constitution of India is filed prayingtha,n the crcunrstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Higecu .p,eased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction rJeparticularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of therespondent No.4 dismantled the house of the petitioner bearing PIbt No 28DoorNo. 17-82/A, GaneshNagar, SaligramapuramPost,S.V.N.V.P.Gajapathi Nagar, Adavivaramvillage, Visakapatnam District without priornotice or intimationto thepetitioner as wholly illegal, arbitraryandinviolationofPrinciplesofnaturaljusticeandconsequentlydirecttheRespondents not to Interfere withthe peaceful possession and enjoyment ofthe petitioner's138 88 So Yd-x'-nt of138.88 Sq.Yds with a RCC slabbed house (under dismantle), situatedinS.No.275, Ganesh Nagar ColonySaligrama PuramPost, AdavivaraMvillage, China Qadili Mandalam,Visakhapatnam District in the interest ofjustice. X"

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NQ; 29112 OF 7ni7)

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NQ; 29112 OF 7ni7)

PetitionunderSection151 CPCisfiledprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with thepeaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property bearing plotNo.28 Door No. 17-82/A toan extent of 138.88 Sq.Yds with a RCC slabbedhouse (under dismantle), situatedin S.No.275, GaneshNagar ColonySaligrama PuramPost, AdavivaraMvillageChinaGadiliMandalamVisakhapatnam District.

GVMCrRespondent No.2: SRI J DILEEP KUMAR (SC FOR

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI N V S PRASAD VARMA

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

APHC010398372024

IN THE HfGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOU^R^”'^^^'^

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE KWRIT petition NOSft.ii'.104S0 of 2009, 7300. 7.inqWRIT petition Kin,OF 2Qm MANMADHA RAO

Between:

of 2017

M.S.Prakasha Rao and others

AND

...PETITIONER

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K. GANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1G.P FOR ENDOWMENTS

2. N.V.S.PRASAD VARMA (SC)

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER..

W.P.No.6513 of 2009 is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution ofIndia, seeking the following relief:

“-••to issue a Writ. Order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring theaction of the tesponaents in obstructing thestructures andrepairs being made by the petitioners i.e Sri Ganesh Seua Sangham,intheir respective plotsIn Sy.No.275 of AdavivaramVillage,Visakhapatnam as arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights and consequentlyissue directions to the respondents to restrain themselves from interferingwith any kind of the construction activities of the petitioners in their plots andpass such other orders....”

W.P.No. 10450 of 2009is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one[ in][ the][ nature][ of]Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in issuing theimpugned Memoin Rc.No.C1/5557/87-2,dated 256.03.2009 and causinginterferenceinthe peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitionerSangham in their land in Sy.No.275 of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnamas arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights and consequently[set][ aside][ the]impugned notice declaring the same as null and void with directions to therespondents to restrain themselves fromInterfering with any kindof theconstruction activities of the petitioners in their plots and pass such otherorders....”Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in issuing theimpugned Memoin Rc.No.C1/5557/87-2,dated 256.03.2009 and causinginterferenceinthe peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitionerSangham in their land in Sy.No.275 of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnamas arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights and consequently[set][ aside][ the]impugned notice declaring the same as null and void with directions to therespondents to restrain themselves fromInterfering with any kindof theconstruction activities of the petitioners in their plots and pass such otherorders....”

W.P.No.7300 of 2017is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly[one][ in][ the][ nature][ of]Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining[to][ and][ in][ connection][ with]the Order dated 25.10.2016in O.A.No.347 of 2015 on thefile of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, PedakakanI, Guntur District, A.P and seeking certioraricalling for the records pertaining to and in connection[with][ the][ order] anddecreedated25.10.2016inO.A.No.347of 2015onthefileofA.P.Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur District and quash the same anddeclare the order of the 2”*^ Respondent Tribunal as[null][ and][ void][ without]jurisdiction contrary to the procedure contemplated[under][ the][ A.P.Charitable]andHinduReligiousInstitutionsand EndowmentsAct,1987andaisocontrarytotheorderanddecreepassedbythisHon’bleCourtinW.P.M.P.No.13429/2009 in .WP.No. 10450 of 2009, dated[28.05.2009] andWrit of certiorari calling for the records pertaining[to][ and][ in][ connection][ with]the Order dated 25.10.2016in O.A.No.347 of 2015 on thefile of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, PedakakanI, Guntur District, A.P and seeking certioraricalling for the records pertaining to and in connection[with][ the][ order] anddecreedated25.10.2016inO.A.No.347of 2015onthefileofA.P.Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur District and quash the same anddeclare the order of the 2”*^ Respondent Tribunal as[null][ and][ void][ without]jurisdiction contrary to the procedure contemplated[under][ the][ A.P.Charitable]andHinduReligiousInstitutionsand EndowmentsAct,1987andaisocontrarytotheorderanddecreepassedbythisHon’bleCourtinW.P.M.P.No.13429/2009 in .WP.No. 10450 of 2009, dated[28.05.2009] and .WP.No.8517 of 2009 In .WP.N0 6S13 of 2009 dated 06.03 2009and passsuch other orders....”

W.P.No.7309 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the ConstitutionIndia, seeking the following relief:

.....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of certiorari caliing for the recordspertaining to and in connection withthe Order dated 20.12.2016 h‘in O.A.No.337 of 2015 on the file of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur District,A.P and seeking certioraricalling for the records pertaining to and in connection with the order anddecree dated 20.12.2016in O.A.No.337 of 2015onthefileof A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Guntur Districtand quash the same anddeclare the order of the 2''^ Respondent Tribunalas null and void withoutjurisdiction contrary to the procedure contemplatedunder the A.P.Charitableand Hindu ReligiousInstitutionsand Endowments Act,1987 and alsocontrary to the order and decree passed by this HonbleCourtInW.P.M.P.NO. 13429/2009 in .WP.NO.104SO of 2009. dated 28.05.2009andW.P.N0.8S17 of 2009 in W.P.No.6513 of 2009 dated 06.03.2009and passsuch other orders....”

W.P.No.23547 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution India, seeking the following relief; of

to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondent No. 4 dismantled therespondent No. 4 dismantled thehouse of the petitioner bearing No. 28, Door No.17-B2/A, Ganesh Nagar,Saligramapuram Post,S.V.N.V.P.GaJapathi Nagar. AdavivaramVillageVisakhapatnam District without prior notice or intimation to the petitioneraswholly illegal, arbitrary and in violative of principles of natural Justiceandconsequentlydirect the respondentsnotto interferewith the peacefulSaligramapuram Post,S.V.N.V.P.GaJapathi Nagar. AdavivaramVillageVisakhapatnam District without prior notice or intimation to the petitioneraswholly illegal, arbitrary and in violative of principles of natural Justiceandconsequentlydirect the respondentsnotto interferewith the peacefulpossession and enjoyment of the petitioner’sproperty bearing Plot No. 28,property bearing Plot No. 28,Door No. 17-82/A toan extent of 138.88 Sq.yds with a RCC slabbed housean extent of 138.88 Sq.yds with a RCC slabbed housefunder dismantle), situated In S.No.275. Ganesh Nagar Colony, SaligramaPuram Post. AdavivaramVillage, China Gadili Mandal.VisakhapatnamDistrict and pass such other orders....”Puram Post. AdavivaramVillage, China Gadili Mandal.VisakhapatnamDistrict and pass such other orders....”

2. Heard,Mr.K. Gani Reddy, learnedcounselfor the petitioners;learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments forofficial respondentsand Mr. N.V.S.Prasad Varma, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent/temple.

3. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Writ Petitions,I finditexpedient to decide these matters by a Common Order.

4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.6513 of 2009is taken as aleading case.

5. The main crux of the matter in W.P.No. 6513 of 2009is that thepetitioners are the members of Ganesh Seva Sangham, (in short ‘the Society’)which registered under Societies Registration Act, established for the purposeof providing facilities to its members, who are landless poor and residents ofVisakhapatnam to construct own houses. The petitioners made an applicationto 3^^ respondent/ EG of the temple to provide suitable land on sale basis forthe purpose of allotting the house sites toits membersof the Sangam(society). The Trust Board vide Resolution No.230, dated11.06.1982 hasQonstituted a sub-committee to deal with a the subject issue, whoin turnsubmitted a report regarding allotment of land under negotiations made withthe registered society and fixed the rates and extents for sale. Accordingly theland in Sy.No.275 to an extent of Ac. 10.00 cents at Adavivaram Villagewasagreed to allot to ‘the Society’ at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre and same ishillock by that time. Total extent Ac. 22.06 cents of the landallotted and delivered to the Society and the Society has paidan amount of Rs. 4,45,000/-towards part payment of sale consideration^ The individual residential plotswere distributed among its members,iincluding the petitioners and the Societyhas provided all amenities by spending hugeamounts and some of them haveconstructed pucca houses in their respective plots.

6. While the matter stood thus, the Devastham people led by the 3'“respondent highhandedly started obstructing theconstructions and also therepairs being taken up by the members.In view of undue interference by therespondent/templetheSocietychallengedtheG.O.Ms.No.578videW.P.No.2810 and 2811 of 2001and this Court superseded the G.O videcommonorderdated01.02.2008.Thepetitionershavealsomadearepresentation to the official respondents to execute the Registered SaleDeedin favour of the petitioners, but in vain. In view of threat of dispossessioninrespect land, the present writ petitions came to be filed.

7. Per contra, 3'^^ respondent filed counter affidavitand same is adoptedby the 2"- respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents wouldcontend that the petitioners have filedseries of writ petitions one after anotherand making representationson the same subject, even though the writpetitions were disposed of by this Court.It is further contended that the TrusttBoardsub-committeerecommendedfor allotmentof land underprivatenegotiationsto the Societyat two differentareasarerejectedbytheGovernment vide Memo dated 02.09.2002.As such, the Society is not entitledto claimthe land for saleiin favour of its members by way of private negotiations. The respondent/ temple did not handedover possession of theland to the petitioners, but said Sangham has unauthorizedlyencroached theland and made developments withoutproper authority and the constructionsand amenities provided by the Society are not binding on the respondents.Hence, the transactions made by the Society by depositihg the amount in therespondent/ templeis not validas the said proposal was rejected by theGovernment vide Memo 02.09.2022 and the membersare at liberty to takeback the amount already deposited with the respondent/ temple.

8. It is further contended that in view of the PIL in W.P.No.11812 oft2005, this Court issued interim order dated 07.06.2005and modified ordersdated 22.11.2005 permitting the sale of landspertaining to temples only byway of public auction and imposed restriction on all other alienations otherthan public auctions pending further ordersin thisregard. Thepetitionersociety was not delivered possession of the land by the respondent/templeandthepetitionersareencroachersandtheconstructions andtheconstructions made by its members including the petitioners areliable foreviction under Section 83 of the A.P.Endowments Act 30 of 1987.It is furthercontended that the entire hill covered by Sy.No.275 of Adivivaram Villagemeasuring Ac. 5,279.57 cents was notified as Green Belt area in the MasterPlan of VUDA and this Court in W.P.No.3184 of 2009 filed by the respondent/temple against GVMC and VUDA issuedinterim order nottogrant anypermission for construction of any individual in the Green belt area pendingdisposal of the writ petition filed by the respondent/ temple.In view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to proceed with any further constructionsas the layout was also not approved by VUDA and the temple has also nottransferred the landin favour of the Society under proper registered saledeed, as alleged proposal was rejected by the Government. The subject landi.e Sy.No.275 of Adivivaram belongs to respondent/ temple, whichis theabsolute owner of the land by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 20.06.2000 andit was allowed by W.P.No.32700 of 1997, dated 28.09.2000 andit becamefinal. Hence, the petitioners are come under the purview of encroachers andsame is liable to be evicted in accordance procedure laid down under Section83of the Endowments Act.Hence,thewritpetitionsareliabletobedismissed.

9. Perused the record.

10. Itisadmittedfactthatthepetitionershavepaidpartsaleconsideration to the respondent/ temple with regard to subject land. Furtherthe Government has rejected the proposal made by the[Trust][ Board][ for][ sale][ of]the land in favour of the Society and in view of the same, the respondentswould contend that the petitioners are entitled to refund the money whateverthe amount paid by them in view of rejection of the proposal. Hence, question*of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners does not arise.With regard to construction of buildings by the some of the petitionersareconcerned,therespondent/templewouldcontendthattheyarenotresponsible andis not binding on them and further contendedthatthe petitioners are encroachers and they are liable to be evicted under Section 83of the 83 of the Endowments Act.

11. It is undisputed that the petitioners are in possession of the subjectland as per counter-affidavit and also paid part sale considerationtotherespondent/ temple. Since, series of writ petitions have beenfiledby thepetitioners with regard to same subject matter and questioning the authority ofthe respondents again and again including these writpetitionsandthepetitioners are being continued in the subject land since long time by takingadvantage of the litigation. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners reliedon a decision of this Court in “Samudrala Pedda Subbaiah SastryV. TheJoint Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad and Another"^ whereinitwas held as follows:-Question is whether the petitioner having purchased the propertyunder a registered sale deed can be said to be an encroacher. No doubt theproperty ivas registered under Section 38 of the Act but the Act has come intoforce in 1967 and the alienation was made above, the property was alienatedin favour of the petitioner in1942.Thus, the petitioner having beeninuninterrupted and continuous possession and enjoyment for over 12 yearsfrom the date of the sale, even if the person, who alienated the property hadno title thereto, the petitioner must be held to have perfected histitle byadverse possession. Having thus acquired title he by no stretch of imaginationbe consideredto be an encroacher.Under thosecircumstances,theauthorities below have misconstrued the term ‘encroachment’ and directedejectment of the petitioner’.

12. Therefore, the respondents cannot say that thepetitionersareencroachers, though they paid part sale consideration as per directions of the respondent/ temple and occupied the plots and constructed[houses][ and][ living]therein since long time. Further, the respondents have[also][ not][ properly][ acted]upon to settle the issue amicably with the petitioners[either][ to][ refund][ the]amount paid by them or to evict them by following due[procedure][ since][ long]time.

13. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of[India][ is][ reproduced]hereunder:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every HighCourtshall have power, throughout the territories in relationto whichitexercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,[including][ in]appropriatecases,anyGovernment,withinthoseterritoriesdirections, 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.

(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.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]allany proceedings relating to, a petition under clause[(1),][ without-](a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition[and]alldocuments 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]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 weeksfrom the date on which it is received or from the date on which thecopy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or wherethe High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before theexpiry 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, onthe expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of thesaid 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 byclause (2) of article 32.”

14. Section83oftheEndowmentsActdealswithevictionofencroachment, which reproduced hereunder:

“83. Encroachment of land, building, or any property belonging toa charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction ofencroacher:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary[contained][ in][ this]Act or any other law for the time being in force, the encroachment of land,building, or any property of a charitable or religious institution, or endowmentis prohibited.

(2) TheExecutiveOfficer of theCharitableor ReligiousInstitutionorEndowment or the Assistant Commissioner or any authority higher in rankthereof, shall, by notice, require the encroacher to remove the encroachmentas hereinafter provided:

Provided that the encroacher shall be entitled to submit reply/explanation tosuch notice within one week from the date of receipt of such notice, whichshall 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 dulystipulatingthe timewithinwhichsuchencroachment shall be removed.

(3) If the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment within such stipulatedperiod, the authority who issued the notice shall remove the encroachment with police assistance, if necessary and recover the cost of removal from theencroacher.

(4) For the purpose of securing police assistance, the authority concernedshall approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police/ Commissioner ofPolice who shall thereupon provide such police assistance asis deemednecessary for the removal of encroachment.

(5) Any act of encroachment including the attempt to encroach shall be acognizable offence, non-ballable and triable as a warrant case, in accordancewith the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, punishable withimprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but whichmay extend to eight years and with fine which may extend to Rupeesonelakh.

15. And also 84 of the Endowments Act provides mode of evictiononfailure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the EndowmentsTribunal. [Substituted by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.]

UjWhere within the period specified in the order under sub-section(4) ofSection 83, the encroacher has not removed the encroachment and has notvacated the land,building or space,the Assistant Commissioner havingJurisdiction over the sub-division may remove the encroachment and obtainpossession of the land, building or space, encroached upon,taking suchpolice assistance as may be necessary. Any Police Officer whose help isrequired for this purpose shall be required to render the necessary help to theAssistant Commissioner.

[2}Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by any orderof the EndowmentsTribunal under sub-section(4) of Section83frompreferring an appeal before the High Court to establish that the Charitable andreligious 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 thedate 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.]

16. As could be seen from the material available on[record][ and][ also]considering the submissions of both the counsel,itis very clear that therespondents have vehemently opposed to execute the[registered][ sale][ deed][ in]favour of the petitioners, though the petitioners have[paid][ part][ sale][ transaction]to the respondent/ temple. Further, the Government[has][ also iejected][ the]proposal of the respondent/ temple to sell the house[sites to][ the][ petitioners.][ In]the light of such circumstances, the petitioners are[not][ entitled][ to][ claim][ relied]under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as[the][ petitioners][ have][ filed]series of writ petitions with regard to same subject[matter][ and][ finally][ as][ per]G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 20.06.2000 the subject land belongs[to][ the][ respondent/]temple which was confirmed by W.P.No.32700 of 1997[dated][ 28.09.2000][ and]samebecame final. Further in W.P.No.36548 of 1998, dated[01.07.1999,]learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the[action][ taken by][ the][ Trust]Board of the temple to deal withits properties does[not/][ cannot][ impose][ a]legally enforceable public law obligation on the temple[management][ nor][ does]it create a right in the petitioner to purchase the[encroached][ land][ as a][ matter]of courseor laworright without violationof the[temple][ management,]of mandamus to the temple management to sell theTherefore, the issuanceencroached land to the petitioner or its members does[not][ arise.][ Writ][ Petition]the misconceived right of the petitioner. With the[above][ said]is grounded onobservation, the said Writ Petition was dismissed.

%

17. Further, the Government passed order vide G.O.Ms.No.253,[dated]

03.03.2005, wherein at Clause 13, which reproduced[hereunder:]

“13.TheCommissionerofEndowments,afterobtainingtherecommendations of the Committee shall exercise the powers vested with himunder Section 89 of the said Act as a Statutory Authority.[He][ should][ follow the]provisionsoftheActstrictlywhileissuingtheproceedingsontherecommendations of the above committee and ensure that the compromise tobe effected under 89 is in the best Interests of the Institution and by exerciseof independent judgment. ’’

18. Under the aforementioned circumstances andclosescrutinyofearlier proceedings and orders of this Court as stated[supra, the][ petitioners]have no locus standi to challenge the subject issue again and again is highlyillegal without end at large and sameis nothing but[speculative]litigation.Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the case of the petitioners to claim reliefunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.[However,]itisleftopen for the petitioners to claim the amount paid by[them][ towards][ part][ sale]transaction to the respondent/ temple with reasonable[rate][ of][ interest][ or][ settle]»the issue amicably with each other.It is made clear[that][ the][ respondents][ are]directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitionerstill refund ofamounts paid to the petitioners by the respondents.[There][ shall][ be][ no][ order][ as]to costs.

20. The miscellaneous applications pending, closed.

if any, shall also stand

To,

Sd/- M RAMESH BABUDEPUTY^ RE^TRAR//TRUE COPY//SEC^ftON OFFICER

TF

1. One CC to Sri K Gani Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]3.One CC to Sri G V Shivaji Advocate [OPUC]3.One CC to Sri G V Shivaji Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri M Ravindranath Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to Sri J Dileep Kumar (SC for GVMC) Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Sri N V S Prasad Varma, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.6513,10450 of 2009, 7300, 7309 & 23547 of2017

^^OFANdS;^I0 3 MAR 2025^ . Current Section.

DISMISSING THE W.P.s, WITHOUT COSTS