logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 864 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 14346 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
Parties : Maram Nagaraju Versus The District Endowments Officer, Endowments Department Nandyal & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP For Endowments.
Date of Judgment : 14-05-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Article 14, 19, 21 and 300‑A of the Constitution of India
- Section 151 CPC
- A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
- Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act
- Section 43 of the Act 30/1997
- Endowments Tribunal (statutory remedy)

2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Mandamus
- Eviction Order
- Arbitrary, illegal, beyond the powers
- Status‑quo
- Alternative statutory remedy
- Limitation (implied by 15‑day period)

3. Summary:
The petitioner, owner of a parcel of land, challenged an eviction order dated 04‑05‑2026 issued by the Tahsildar on the claim of a temple that the land belonged to it. The petitioner alleged denial of notice before a register was prepared under Section 43 of the Act and sought a writ of mandamus and suspension of the order. The Assistant Government Pleader contended that the petition was inadmissible because Section 83 provides an alternative remedy before the Endowments Tribunal within 15 days. The Court held that the statutory remedy must be exhausted and therefore declined to entertain the writ, but allowed the petitioner four weeks to approach the Tribunal and directed both parties to maintain the status‑quo on the property. No costs were awarded.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: 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 Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the Impugned Eviction Order dt.04-05-2026 directing the petitioner to vacate and handover the schedule property to the Endowments Department within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order as arbitrary, illegal, beyond the powers and contrary to Sec.83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned Eviction Order dt.04-05-2026 issued by the 1St respondent in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 Impugned Eviction Order dt.04-05-2026 issued by the 1St respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice)

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 04.05.2026 issued by respondent No.1 whereby directed the petitioner to vacate and handover the schedule property to the Endowments Department within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case are that petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-80 cents and Ac.1-24 cents situated in Sy.Nos.91/1 and 91/3 of Mitnala Village, Nandyal Mandal and District, having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed, dated 15.12.2011. The 1-B register and Adangals disclose that petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property. The grievance of petitioner is that the Tahsildar issued the impugned order stating that the Tahsildar received an application from the Chiarman of Sri Maremma Grama Devatha Temple, Mitnala Village alleging that the subject land is belonging to Sri Maremma Village Goddess Temple. Questioning the said notice, petitioner filed W.P.No.34699 of 2025 and the same is pending before this Court. Respondent No.1 issued a certificate of Registration under Section 43 of the Act 30/1997 and a register under Section 43 of the Act was prepared in favour of Sri Grama Devatha Devasthanam duly including the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.5-32 cents in Sy.No.91 in the register. The authorities failed to issue any notice to the petitioner before preparing the register under Section 43 of the Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the explanation submitted by petitioner dated 12.01.2026 has not been considered and the reasons are recorded by the District Endowments Officer vide order, dated 04.05.2026. Taking advantage of the same, the authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on written instructions submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 83 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 and any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority under sub-section (2) of the Act shall have a right to approach the Endowments Tribunal within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the such order.

6. As there is an alternative statutory remedy is provided under the statute to the petitioner to approach the Endowments Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the authority has not recorded its finding regarding the long-standing possession for more than a century and requested to protect the interests of the petitioner for a short while to enable the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within a period of four (4) weeks from today and it is open to the learned Tribunal to consider the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo, existing as on today over the subject property. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal