IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that land regularization claims must be substantiated by ownership rights, which the petitioners failed to demonstrate.

ORDER :

As the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. The petitioners have filed the batch of writ petitions before this Court vide WP Nos.37848, 37855, 37856, 37858, 37869, 37872, 37889, 37890, 37897, 37906, 37955, 37956, & 37957/2014 challenging the action of the respondent no.2 in not regularizing the occupation of the petitioners on par with the other occupants in the survey number, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions are that they have purchased the lands in different extents in Survey No.275 and 275/D1 of Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, through registered sale deeds. The 2nd respondent informed to the petitioners that the subject lands in Adavivaram, granted pattas to them i.e., respondent No.2 devasthanam. For regularization of the illegal encroachments, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Entds.IV) Department dated 19.8.2000 stipulating a time within which applications should be made for considering or regularization purportedly under the provisio to Section 80(1) (c) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the 1987 Act”). Subsequently, the 1strespondent issued another G.O.Ms.No.253 Revenue (Endts.IV (2) Department, dated 03.03.2005 and extended the time. The said G.O.Ms.No.253 was issued in supersession of the earlier order in G.O.Ms.No.578. The 2nd respondent not allowed the petitioners and others to lay fencing over the lands in order to protect their lands from the land grabbers and also not permitted to raise any constructions pending the application before them. Later, the petitioner and the association have filed WP No.2337 of 2007 before this Court seeking to direct the 2ndrespondent to consider their respective applications and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2007 at the stage of admission. In pursuance of the above writpetition, the 2ndrespondent communicated a cyclostyle letters vide Rc.No.C/9/6209/2007 dated 01.02.2008 stating that vendor of thepetitioners filed suits against the Devasthanam which were dismissed wherein, in the said suit, the Devasthanam contested that the patta No.214 was forged one. Thus the vendors of the petitioners have no right to sell the land in Survey No.275/D1 hence the applications of the petitioners were not considered. Hence, these writ petitions came to be filed.

4. During pendency of the above writ petitions, this Court vide order dated 09.12.2014, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction in all the writ petitions. The operative portion of the interim order as under:

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri V.Venugopala Rao for second respondent. The petitioners submit that they have applied for regularization of the plots under their occupation, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments IV) Department dated 19.8.2000 (subsequently substituted G.O.Ms.No253 Revenue Endowments IV)(2) Department dated 3.3.2005) and contend that in W.P. No. 2337 of 2007 an order was passed by this Court on 26.2.2007 directing the second respondent to dispose of the applications of the parties therein, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 253 dated 3.3.2005.

The Standing Counsel for second respondent states that by virtue of the interim order dated 7.6.2005 in WPMP. No. 15055 of 2005 in W.P.No. 11812 of 2005, this Court had prohibited entering into any compromise by the second respondent under Section 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

In this view of the matter, status quo shall be maintained by both parties in all respects in respect of the land in S.No. 275 of Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District”

5. Due to non-compliance of the same, the petitioners