IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 32990 OF 2011
Between:
Nakaraboina Appa Rao, S/o Late Paydayya, Daily Wage
Earner, R/o D.No.23-116
Simhagiri Colony, Pedhagadili, Visakhapatnam
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department at
Visakhapatnam
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department
Visakhapatnam
3. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Temple, rep. by its
Executive Officer,
Simhachalam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondents
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 a writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of
writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining
to the Judgment (Award) dated
12-05-2010 in OA.No.92 of 2009 on the file of the respondent
No.1 and set aside
same by holding that the Judgment is illegal, arbitrary,
pervasive and in violation
of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 41003 OF 2011)
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 to
suspend the operation of judgment (Award) dated 12-05-2010
in O.A.No.92 of
2009 on the file of the Respondent No.1, pending disposal
of the above Writ
Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T D PANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: E SAMBASIVA PRATAP
Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following: Order
APHC010473282011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
wm
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 32990/2011
Between:
Nakaraboina Appa Rao,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Deputy Commissioner and Others
...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.T D PANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2,E SAMBASIVA PRATAP
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is 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 Certiorari call for the records pertaining
to the
Judgment Award dated 12.05.2010 in OA No.92 of 2009
on the file of
the respondent No. 1 and set aside same by holding
that the Judgment
is illegal, arbitrary pervasive and In violation of
Article 14 21 and 300A
of Constitution of India ”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
2.
Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.
On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
3.
by this Court in
matter is squarely covered by the common order passed
hence, requests this
W.P.No.3807 of 2010 and batch, dated 01.10.2024, and
The operative portion of the
Court to pass similar order in this petition also.
said order is as follows;-
7. Under the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is
nd
inclined to set aside the Impugned orders passed by the 2
respondent, while directing the Deputy Commissioner,
Endowments, VIsakhapatnam to refer the matters to the
Endowment Tribunal for fresh consideration, within four (04)
weeks months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On such submission, learned Endowment Tribunal is
directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within three (03) months thereafter in accordance
with law, after affording ample opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners..
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments
4.
any relief in the writ
appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of
petition and prayed to dismiss the same.
5. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsels and
this Court deems fit to
upon perusing the entire material available on record,
dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of the said order.
3
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the common
6.
order passed in W.P.No.3807 of 2010 and batch, dated 01.10.2024. There
shall be no order as to costs.
order passed in
7. The Registry is directed to attach a copy of the
W.P.No.3807 of 2010 and batch, dated 01.10.2024 to this order.
any, shall stand
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
closed.
Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO
ASSISTANT ^GISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Endowment Department at Visakhapatnam
1. The Deputy Commissioner
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department Visakhapatnam
Temple, Simhachalam,
3 The Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha
Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam.
4. One CC to SRI T D PANl KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]
SRI E SAMBASIVA PRATAP Advocate [OPUC]
5.« One CC to
.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
6. Two CCsto.C
7. Three CD Copies
of 2010 and
(Along with Copy of Order dated 01.10.2024 in WP. No.3807
batch)
HIGH COURT
DATED: 29/10/2024
ORDER
WP.No.32990 of 2011
£ 1S APR 20?5
Curreot Sefition ^
DISPOSING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS
1
0'
APHC010438372010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 1293/2010 & 3807/2010
WP No.1293/2010:
Between:
Sri Gorle Narendra Kumar, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devesthanam ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.AS C BOSE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.PSRINIVASULU
2.GPFOR ENDOWMENTS
3.E SAMBASIVA PRATAP
4.JAGADISH KUAMAR BATCHU
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:-
Heard Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners;
Ms. Sudeepti Potiuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments;
2
Mr. P.Srinivasulu, Mr. Jagadi Kumar Batchu and Mr.
E.Sambasiva Pratap
learned Counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. As the issue involved in these writ petitions are
one and same they
are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed
of by a common order.
3. It is the case of the petitioners is that the 2'’'^
respondent passed
orders in O.As for encroachment of land belonging to
the 1®* respondent, but
communicated to the petitioner after long time. Pursuant
to the same, the 1®‘
respondent has evicted the petitioner, which is highly
illegal and arbitrary. It is
submitted that Act No.33 of 2007 was brought into existence
by duly
amending some provisions in Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and
Endowments Act, 30 of 1987 (in short “the Endowments
Act’) where under the
power of removing encroachment was vested with Endowments
Tribunal
constituted under Section 162(1) of the Act. Further
the Government issued
orders for constitution of A.P. Endowments Tribunal
at Hyderabad vide
G.O.Ms.No.837, dated 13.08.2009. Therefore, requested
to set aside the
impugned orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Endowments
Department.
4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit
denying all material
averments made in the writ petitions and mainly contended
that the Assistant
Commissioner, Endowments Department has filed the O.As
against the
encroachers and they were allowed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Endowments Department declaring the petitioners and
others as encroachers.
3
S
Pursuant to the said order, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments
Department has evicted the encroachers under Section 84 of the Endowments
Act and later the petitioners have filed these writ petitions after delay of
several years without explaining the delay and latches on their part. Even
otherwise assuming that the order is not valid, the petitioners would have
challenged the same before the order is executed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Endowments under Section 84 of the Endowments Act.
Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5. Perused the record.
6. Upon perusal of entire material on record and considering the
that after establishment of
submissions of both the counsel, this Court opined
to pass any order without
Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority
having jurisdiction.
7. Under the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is inclined to set
aside the impugned orders passed by the 2"'^ respondent, while directing the
Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Visakhapatnam to refer the matters to
four (04) weeks
the Endowment Tribunal for fresh consideration, within
On such submission,
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
learned Endowment Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same as
(03) months thereafter in
expeditiously as possible, preferably within three
of hearing to the
accordance with law, after affording ample opportunity
petitioners.
4
8. With the above direction, both the writ petitions
are disposed of, with
the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no
order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand
closed.
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date :01.10.2024
GvI