The court upheld the dismissal of the Writ Petition, emphasizing that the Endowments Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to endowment properties, necessitating exhaustion of alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT:(per Dr.YLR,J)

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order impugned, dated 10.12.2024, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in/and W.P.No.1876 of 2022, whereby, while closing I.A.No.1 of 2024 granting liberty to the proposed respondents therein to pursue their remedies before the AP Endowments Tribunal (for brevity „the Tribunal‟) in accordance with law, the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed holding that the Writ Petition was not maintainable to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Appellants had to approach „the Tribunal‟ for redressal of their grievance in respect of the subject land, since „the Tribunal‟ alone got competent jurisdiction to decide the issue.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts in the background of which the present controversy has arisen are as under:

One Virothi Bangaraiah, the father of the Appellant No.1, obtained the land admeasuring Acs.3.13 cents in Sy.No.181/1 of Lankelapalem Village, Parvada Mandal, through a settlement patta No.436 and had been peacefully enjoying it. He executed a registered will vide Document No.13/1970 dated 19.02.1970 registered with Sub-Registrar Office Anakapalli in favour of the Appellant No.1 and her husband Vepada Somaraju. After the demise of Appellant No.1‟s father the land devolved on her and her husband. The Revenue Authorities mutated her name in the revenue records viz., Pattadar Passbook, Title Deed, Adangal and 1-B. A survey report was also issued stating that the Appellant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment over the property.

The Endowment Authorities without having any right over the land or even without issuing notice to Appellant No.1 placed the subject land under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 stating that the land belongs to Endowments/Temple Authorities. The Appellant No.1 made an application to de-notify the subject land from the List of Prohibited Properties, but it appears no action was taken. Writ Petition was filed for the inaction of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in de-notifying the land.

3. Respondent No.4 filed Counter-Affidavit in the Writ Petition contending that the subject land belongs to Respondent No.5-Temple. Appellant No.1 had to approach the Tribunal under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity „the Act‟) as she got an alternative efficacious remedy and it was urged to dismiss the petition.

4. Respondent No.8 filed Counter-Affidavit in the Writ Petition contending that total extent of land measuring Acs.10.13 cents covered under Sy.No.189 of Lankelapalem Village is classified as government dry and the name of “Paradesamma Grama Devatha” was recorded as pattadar vide patta No.436. As it is endowment land, it was published under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of „the Act‟. Several registered sale transactions transpired in the land in Sy.No.189 in violation of Sections 80 and 81 of „the Act‟ without any valid permission from the Endowment Department. Therefore Respondent No.4 filed O.A.No.13 of 2022 before the Endowments Tribunal for an injunction and obtained interim orders to maintain Status-quo and the matter is pending. In the course of settlement operations, the settlement authorities entertained all the claims and determined the new rights under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and granted settlement pattas to all the eligible persons, and prepared settlement records. Neither the name of Appellant No.1 nor her vendor nor her vendor‟s vendor is recorded in the settlement record as Pattadar. The learned Single Judge having heard the arguments of both sides, and having perused the record, dismissed the Interlocutory Application and the Writ Petition leaving it open to the Appellants to approach the Tribunal for an appropriate legal remedy.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the subject