IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that procedural irregularities in property registration under Act 30 of 1987 invalidate subsequent claims of ownership.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

“….to issue writ of prohibition declaring the action of Respondent No. 5 in entertaining O.A.No.630 of 2017 as arbitrary, illegal and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent No.5 not to entertain O.A. No.630 of 2017 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass…”

2. Heard Sri B. Somasekhar, learned cousnel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Smt P.Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents No.3 and 4 filed O.A.No.630 of 2017 on the file of Respondent No.5 stating that they are absolute owners of the property to an extent of Ac.3- 18 cents in RS.No.693 situated at Kalidindi Village and Mandal which was born out of RSR relating to Kalidindi Village. According to Respondents No.3 and 4, the said land was meant for devadasis for performing dances in both the respondents 3 and 4 devastanams and get appropriate income thereon till they perform duties. After abolition of Devadasis Act, the rights over the said property exclusively vested to the petitioners 2 and 3. The respondents 3 and 4 have no right or authority to exercise their jurisdiction over the subject property under the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 since the subject property is not an inam property burdened with dancing service for respondents 3 and 4 temples. It is further stated that the land in RS.No.623 and 693 of Kalidindi Village and Mandal is not an endowed property and originally the predecessors of title of the petitioners were holding possession and enjoyment of the subject land as their private and personal properties. The predecessors in title to the petitioners were issued Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 vide orders No.12857 KKL dated 08.05.1959 by the Special Deputy Tasildhar, Inams, Revenue Divisional Office, Gudivada. It is further stated that Smt Puvvala Rattamma, W/o Purushotham who was granted ryotwari patta on 05.05.1989 under Ex.A2 was the original pattadar, executed a registered settlement deed in faovur of her nephew P.Bhogeswara Rao under a registered document NO.1084 of 1963 dated 29.05.1963 for the agricultural land owned, possessed and succeeded by her in St No.693 extent being Ac 3.18 cents and Sy.No.623 extent being Ac 6.00 cents out of Ac 11.95 cents. It is further stated that whole claim of respondents No.3 and 4 basing upon the entries made in RSR with respect to R.S.No.696 of Kalidindi Village and Mandal, but the respondents’ no.3 and 4 have failed to mention the basic document, on which they have relied upon to incorporate the entries in the RSR. It is further stated that even as per the register under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987 maintained by the Endowments Department, there is no mention of subject property i.e., Sy.No.193 extent being Ac 3.18 cents of Kalidindi Village, as per the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in R.Dis.No.A5/1336/2005 dated 09.05.2006, whereas the property in Sy.No.693 of Kalidindi Village was included in R2 proceedings in R.Dis.No.A5/7443/2016, dated 25.11.2016, wherein the subject property was shown as temple property at Serial No.17 belonging to respondent No.3 and 4 herein. The respondents did not follow procedure contemplated in Section 43(10) of the Act 30, 1987 and no notice was issued to the petitioner before effecting such amendment by the respondent No.2 and it is equally to the judgment dated 27.7.2021 in WP No.12258 of 2021. It is further stated that once the inclusion of entries under Section 43(10)of the Act 30, 1987 is declared as bad in law, OA No.630 of 2017 filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 pending before respondent No.5 cannot be maintained and any continuation of OA before the respondent