(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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official Respondents in not considering the Petitioner's representations dt24.12.2025 and 01.05.2026 and in not deleting/removing the lands admeasuring Ac.42.03 gts in Sy. Nos. 105 to 108 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, from the list of properties held by Respondent No.3 in terms of Section 43(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, as illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power and Consequently direct the official Respondents being Respondent No. 1 and 2 to forthwith consider the Petitioner's representations dt 24.12.2025 and 01.05.2026 by examining all the relevant records including G.O.M.S No 45 dated 06.05.2023 and the orders dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Teiangana in WP No 13477 of 2023 and WP No. 22539 of 2023 and pass a reasoned order under Section 43 (10) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 deleting/removing the lands admeasuring Ac.42.03 gts in Sy. Nos.105 to 108 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, from the list of properties held by Respondent No.3 and pass such other order or orders.

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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Official Respondents herein in not considering the Petitioners representations dt.01.05.2026 and 24.12.2025 and in not deleting/removing the subject lands in Sy. No. 104 to 108 of Kondapur Village, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State from the list of properties held by Respondent No.3 in terms of Sec.43(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 as illegal, arbitrary and a colorable exercise of power and I. Consequently direct the official Respondents being Respondent No. 1 and 2 herein to forthwith consider the Petitioners representations dt.01.05.2026 and 24.12.2025 by examining all the relevant records including G.O.M.S No 45 dated 06.05.2023 and the orders dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Honble High Court of Telangana in WP No 13477 of 2023 and WP No. 22539 of 2023 and pass a reasoned order under Section 43 (10) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 deleting/removing lands in Sy. No. 104 to 108 of Kondapur Village, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State from the list of properties held by Respondent No.3 and pas such other orders or orders.)

Common Order

1. Since the issues involved in these two writ petitions are identical in nature, these two writ petitions are heard analogously and are decided by the common order.

2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that an extent of Ac.85.32 Guntas in Sy.Nos.104 to 108, situated at Kondapur village, was sold by the legal heirs of Vega Seetharamaiah to Bhagawan Sri Bala Sai Baba Central Trust, Sri Nilayam, Kurnool, (hereafter called as Trust). As it stands thus, The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, took effect on 17.02.1976, the declarant’s legal heirs filed Form-I on 15.09.1976, before they sold the above mentioned land to Trust. The former State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988, which permitted the retention of five acres of urban land in addition to 1000 Square Meters of land per person/declarant. After determining of the excess land, the declarants have retained to an extent of Ac.15.29 Guntas and the remaining land admeasuring Ac.70.03 guntuas was declared as surplus land out of Ac.85-35 guntas. Pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the surplus land to an extent of Ac.70.03 guntas stood vested with the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. It is further stated that in order to carryout day to day operations and fund requirement, the Trust has executed six Registered Agreements of sale-cum-General Power of Attorneys bearing document Nos.1399 of 2000, 1296 of 2000, 1297 of 2000, 1317 of 2000, 1319 of 2000, 1465 of 2000 dated 24.02.2000, 25.02.2000 and 26.02.2000 commencement from dated 24.02.2026 and 26.02.2026. Upon receipt of the entire sale consideration, the Trust alienated to an extent of Ac.43.00 Guntuas surplus land in survey No.105 to 108 to one Bhupathi Associates and the possession was delivered by the Trust to Bhupati Associates.

4. It is further stated when the petitioner insisted for execution of registered sale deeds basing upon the agreement of sale dated 14.02.2002 for an extent of Ac.43.00 guntas in Sy. No.105 to 108 of Kondapur village, having received part sale consideration, it was informed by the managing trustee that several disputes are pending in respect of the lands including the Urban Land Ceiling clearance and the registered sale deeds would be executed only after resolution of all disputes and clearance from ULC.

5. It is further stated that as prescribed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and according to Clause 4(1)(e) of G.O. MS. No. 455 dated 25.07.2002 individuals in possession of excess land [other than the excess land holder or his successors], must regularise the land by paying the prescribed government sale consideration for conversion of the land into legal allotment. The Trust got regularized the land under G.O.Ms.No.2065 contrary to stipulation in the G.O., who is not in the possession of the land. After discovering the misrepresentation and fraud related to the regularization and allotment proceedings under G.O.Ms.No.2065, the petitioner filed a review/revision petition on 10.02.2008 to the competent authority, requesting a review or recall of the regularization proceedings issued in favor of the Trust, along with supporting documents. In response to this petition, the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act issued G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023, replacing “Bhagavan Sri Bala Saibaba Central Trust” with “M/s. Bhupati Associates (petitioner).”

6. It is further averred that when the matter stood thus, when the Trust tried to create third party rights over the said property behind the writ petitioner filed suit O.S. No.268 of 2025 (old O.S. No.210 of 2019) before the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally, against the Trust, seeking relief of specific performance of the agreements executed by the Trust. And the VI Additional District Judge, has granted ad interim injunction dated 17.07.2009 restraining the Trust from creating third party rights over the subject property and the said ad interim injunction was made absolute vide order dated 17.01.2022.

7. It is further submitted that the Trust had made an application to A.P. Endowment Department for registration of the Trust properties as endowed properties and to issue a certificate of registration to the Assistant Commissioner under section 43(5) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short hereafter called as Endowment Act 30 of 1987). Accordingly, the endowment department has included the entire extent of land admeasuring 85.32 guntas in survey No.104 to 108 of Kondapur village mechanically in the list of properties under Section 43 (10) of the Endowments Act, which inclusive of the land ad-measuring Ac. 45-00 guntas sold to the petitioner, without verifying the title and possession, based on the application of the Trust and issued a certificate of registration on 15.06.2007.

8. It is further stated in the affidavit that aggrieved by the action of the Urban Land Ceiling Department, in issuing G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023, in favour the petitioner, the Trust has filed Writ Petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, consequently, the matter was amicably settled in between the petitioner and the Trust has withdrawn the writ petition.

9. The petitioner also states that W.P.(PIL) No. 38 of 2024 and several other writ petitions filed challenging G.O. Ms. No. 45, are presently pending before the High Court for the State of Telangana. Status quo orders were also granted in these matters.

10. Notwithstanding of the above narrated facts, the primary contention of the writ petitioner is that all the documents and deeds that demonstrates that the land in Sy.Nos. 104 to 108, Kondapur, in Hyderabad, was encumbered much prior to 2007, indicate that the Trust is neither absolute owner nor possessor of the land and the Trust is not eligible to file an application for the issuance registration of certificate under Section 43(10) of the Endowment Act 30 of 1987. As a result, petitioner submitted an application to remove, delete, and de-recognize as un-endowed. The petitioner made a representation dated 24.12.2025, and 01.05.2026 to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Endowments Department of Andhra Pradesh. However, till date, the respondents neither considered the representation nor removed/deleted the land from the list of properties registered under Section 43 (10) Act. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent, for disposal of the representation dated 24.12.2025 and 01.05.2026.

11. When the matter was under consideration before the Court, I.A. No.2 of 2026 was filed to implead the proposed 4th respondent as party respondent to the writ petition. This Court vide order dated 30.07.2026, has allowed the same and the proposed respondent is permitted to come on record as respondent No.4, as the learned designated Senior Counsel has not opposed the application for impleadment.

12. Another application i.e. I.A. No.3 of 2026 is filed to implead the proposed respondents as party respondents in the writ petition. The said application is also allowed by this Court and the respondents 5 to 9 are permitted to come on record as party respondents. This petition was allowed because, the respondents 5 to 9 filed W.P. (PIL) No.38 of 2024 before the High Court for the State of Telangana, to declare the G.O.Ms.No.45 of 2023, dated 06.05.2023. Under this G.O., the writ petitioner claims proprietary rights over the property. Several legal grounds were issued in the said PIL including that it violates the provisions of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and the Telangana High Court has also granted status quo orders.

13. The respondents 4 to 9 have vehemently opposed the prayer for disposal of the representation asserting that the respondents 5 to 9 filed W.P. (PIL) No.38 of 2024 before the High Court for the State of Telangana to declare the G.O.Ms.No.45 of 2023, dated 06.05.2023, and several other writ petitions were pending before the Telangana High Court, and the Telangana High Court has granted interim orders / directions and the same are pending for consideration, wherein and whereas, the petitioner herein has got substituted his name before the Urban Land Ceiling authority through G.O.Ms.No.45 of 2023, dated 06.05.2023 in the place of Trust issued to the Trust vide G.O.Ms.No.2065 of 2005 dated 29.11.2005.

14. The main contention of the respondent Nos.5 to 9 is that the exemption cannot be granted by Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and the land would have been put to public use and the said land cannot be utilized for the personal aggrandizement or use of the petitioner. And its commercial activities cannot be carried out without any monitoring, control by the Endowments Department and it is contrary to the very spirit and object of the Endowments Act.

15. And it is also further contended that G.O.Ms.No.45 was issued by substituting the name of the Trust with the petitioner, thereby regularized the prime land situated at Kondapur village in favour of the petitioner, without giving notice to any affected parties is unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural just. And the representation does not stated about pendency of various writ petitions challenging G.O.Ms.No.2065 dated 29.11.2005, later G.O. Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 issued in favour of the petitioner and granting of status quo and the non disclosure material facts which bearing the representation would amount to fraud on the government of Andhra Pradesh. Challenging on the Government orders several writ petitions are filed before the High Court for the State of Telangana, the Government of Andhra Pradesh is also a party, on this ground, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed and further stated the writ of mandamus cannot be considered as per the pleadings of the petitioner/s herein.

16. The learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent has relied judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. and others Vs M.R. Apparao and another ((2002) 4 SCC 638) for a proposition that a mandamus can’t be issued, the Apex court in the case observed that “One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus, "mandamus" means a command.

17. Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned designated Senior Counsel, assisted by Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, for petitioner and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned Counsel, assisted by Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, Lakshmi Aiswarya, for respondent No.4 and Sri Unnam Muralidhar, learned designated senior counsel, assisted by Sri Unnam Akhil Chowdary, for respondent Nos.5 to 9, and learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 to 3.

18. Now the issue falls for consider, whether this Court can direct the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for disposal of the representations 24.12.2025, and 01.05.2026 made by the petitioner under the above contentions raised by respective counsels?

19. According to the petitioner the Trust made an application to A.P. Endowment Department for registration of the Trust properties as endowed properties and to issue a certificate of registration to the Assistant Commissioner, accordingly a certificate of registration was issued on 15.06.2007 under section 43(5) Endowment Act 30 of 1987 declaring the properties as endowed properties.

20. Section 43(10) of the Act Endowment Act 30 of 1987 outlines that the trustee or other person incharge of the management of an institution or endowment or his authorised agent shall report to the Assistant Commissioner every year the alterations, omissions or additions in the particulars, relating to the institution or endowment upon receiving such application the assistant commissioner along with grant of certificate of registration under sub-section (5) or sub-section (9) together with a statement of such alterations, omissions or additions. Upon receiving such application, shall make an enquiry as he deems fit and amend the certificate wherever necessary and return it to such trustee or other person. A copy of such amendments shall be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction and another copy to the Commissioner.

21. Section 43(10) of Endowment Act 30 of 1987 authorises, the Trust or person authorised by trust can make an application for deletion, alteration or for omission of the properties from the array of the endowed properties. Act does not authorise to file application by third party. If third party claims the property as private property they has to approach to the Tribunal under section 87 of the Endowment Act 30 of 1987 for declaration the property as private and the petitioner cannot make any an application either to the commissioner or Assistant commissioner and they are not the competent authority to declare the rights of the property.

22. According to the affidavit averments a suit for specific performance vide O.S. No.268 of 2025 (old O.S. No.210 of 2019) pending for trial before the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally filed by the petitioner, as on the day no right is vested in the petitioner, to file an application for deletion of the land registered under section 43(10) of the Endowment Act 30 of 1987.

23. A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. (PIL) No.70 of 2022, dated 29.03.2023, held that once an entry is made in the register maintained under Section 43 of the A.P. Endowments Act 30/1987, the remedy available for the aggrieved party is to approach the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, under Section 87 of the A.P. Endowments Act.

24. The petitioner claims the property in survey numbers 105 to 108 as his own. A dispute regarding property title involves a question of fact between the petitioner and the Trust and the unofficial respondents. The Commissioner is not the authority to adjudicate upon the said issue as it requires evidence. The representation cannot be resolved by the 2nd respondent and he is not the authority. And the petitioner’s only remedy is to approach Endowment Tribunal constituted under Section 87 of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987. The relief sought to remove the land from the purview of Section 43(10) of the Endowment act would be exclusively fall within the domain of Tribunal constituted under Section 87 of Endowment act. The High Court, in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not vest it in an authority contrary to the provisions which has been prescribed under the endowment act nor cannot direct the Endowment commissioner to consider the representations. In this eventuality, the powers could not have been divested by a judicial order to the Endowment Commissioner, in contravention to the provisions contained under Section 87 of Endowment Act. Because the judicial verdict cannot confer a jurisdiction, contrary to what has been provided under the Act.

25. Whether the Constitutional Courts could confer the jurisdiction on an authority or a court which is not otherwise vested with the powers under statute to decide the matter. In that relation a reference may be had to the judgment in the case of Manish Goel Vs Rohini Goel ((2010) 4 SCC 393) particularly as that contained in paragraph no.14, of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:-

                  “Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law."

26. In the case of State of West Bengal Vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and others (2010 (11) SCC 694), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph no.30, it has observed, “that whether a writ of mandamus would lie for seeking a direction to compel the State or its Agencies, to act in contravention to or contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law. Hence, no court can issue a writ of mandamus for directing the authorities to act in contravention to the Rules, and it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate the law, such a direction may result into a destruction of the laid down legal principles. That the inherent powers of the court can be exercised only to remedy a mistake of law, but not to perpetuate a mistake of law.”

27. In the light of the ruling that established by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the view that the argument extended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Endowment Commissioner has the jurisdiction to decide to remove the land under Section 43(10) of the Endowment Act, is incorrect. Rather, the Endowment Tribunal is the designated authority for such matters under Section 87 of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987. By exercising the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot confer a power which is legally vested in it. The Court has no other option except to dismiss the writ petition.

28. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.