Back
APHC010283402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14275/2025 AND I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2025 in WRIT PETITION NO:2398 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO: 14275/2025 Between:
1. RACHAKONDA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. RACHAKONDA AJAYKUMAR,, S/O LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. RACHAKONDA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
11. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
22. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.
33. THE MANGALAGIRITADEPALLIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS COMMISSION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
44. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Municipal Corporation in illegally trespassing and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.57 cents in Sy. No. 271/A-1, A2 and in Sy. No. 271/C-1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4th respondent temple and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.M2/COE-19021(39)/4/2019, dated 28.5.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and to set aside the proceedings dated 28.5.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the 3rd respondent municipal corporation not to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.57 cents in Sy. No. 271/A-1, A2 and in Sy. No. 271/C-1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4th respondent temple by suspending the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.M2/COE-19021(39)/4/2019, dated 28.5.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in WP.NO.14275 of 2025, and dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order passd on 19.06.2025 in W.P.No.14275 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners in the above writ petition to file the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and to pass IA NO: 5 OF 2025 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 pleased to amend the main prayer in the above writ petition as follows The Honble 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 3rd respondent Municipal Corporation in illegally trespassing and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac 6 57 cents in Sy No 271/A1, A2 and in Sy No 271/C1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4rt respondent temple and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D Dis No M2/COE1902139/4/2019, dated 28 5 2025 and vide Rc No M2/19021 32/12/2025, dated 04 06 2025 and the 4 Respondent leasing the premises in favour of the Respondent Corporation, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and to set aside the proceedings dated 28 5 2025 and dated 04 06 2025 issued by the 2 respondent and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deemed fit and proper the circumstances of the case instead of The Honble 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 3rd respondent Municipal Corporation in illegally trespassing and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac 6 57 cents in Sy No 271/A1, A2 and in Sy No 271/C1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4rt respondent temple and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D Dis No M2/COE190213974/2019, dated 28 5 2025 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and to set aside the proceedings dated 28 5 2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region.
2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS WRIT PETITION NO: 2398/2006 Between:
1. SMT. RACHAKONDA RATTAMMA, GUNTUR DISTRICT & 3 OTHERS, W/O. LATE VENKATARATNAM, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. RACHAKONDA KOTESWARARAO,, S/O. LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. RACHAKONDA AJAYKUMAR,, S/O. LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. SMT. RACHAKONDA HYMAVATHI,, W/O. SAMBASIVARAO, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS HYD 2 OTHERS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P.
BOGGULAKUNTA, ABIDS, HYDERABAD.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toto issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not complying the provisions of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 6 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003 r/w with the provisions of Sub Sec. 271/A-1A belongs to Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Temple Situated at Mangalagiri Village & Mandal, Guntur District; as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequentially declare that the petitioners are entitled for transfer of the lands in their occupation forthwith; and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 2899 OF 2006 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 direct the 2nd respondent not to evict the petitioners from the lands in D.No. 271/A-1A admeasuring Ac. 1.64 cents each situated at Mangalagiri Village & Mandal, Guntur District; pending disposal of the main writ petition; and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WVMP 2043 OF 2007 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 vacate the interim orders in WPMP.No.2890 of 2006 in WP.No.2398 of 2006 dated 22.1.2007 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2018 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 set-aside the dismissal order dated 27.02.2018 and to restore the writ petition and WPMP 2899/2006 by granting interim order passed in the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the Registry to post the WP No. 2398 of 2006 under the caption “for being mentioned” and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to review the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in W.P No. 2398 of
2006 and to pass. IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order dated
31.12.2024 passed in WP No. 2398 of 2006 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI
2. -
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. N INDRANI
2. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS
3. K MADHAVA REDDY
4. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
55. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION NO:14275/2025 AND I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2025 in WRIT PETITION NO:2398 OF 2006
COMMON ORDER:-
Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel appearing for Sri G. Venkat Sailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2; Sri V. Venugopal Rao, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of lease of the subject property.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the case are:
The subject temple owns an extent of 8.45 acres of land at Sy.No.271/C-1A and 271/A-1A, Mangalagiri Town. Out of which an extent of Ac-1.88 acres was acquired by the Railways for the railway track. The remaining extent of land was cultivated by the petitioner's father during his lifetime. He died in 1986. During his lifetime, the temple authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioner’s father for eviction and filed a case in A.T.C.No.171 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Special Officer, Mangalagiri, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act. The Court of Special Officer passed an order on 15-03-1993, dismissing the temple's application. Aggrieved thereby, the temple filed an appeal in A.T.A.No.44 of 1993 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, Guntur. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.651 of 1998. In the said revision, the Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside.
On For Being Mentioned application being made, this Court passed the following order:
“In such view of the matter, the rents payable by the petitioners-tenants to the temple is now fixed at Rs. 4000-00 (Rs. Four thousand) per year from March, 2000, on wards. It is also submitted that the petitioners have raised grass in the lands and they may be permitted to raise crops. There cannot be any objection whatsoever for raising the crops by the petitioners-tenants, which are not prohibited under law.”
4. In 2003, the temple authorities issued proceedings, directing the petitioners and their mother to hand over the temple's lands. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, vide proceedings dated 12-02-2004, recognized the petitioners as landless poor persons. In pursuance thereof, the Executive Officer of the Temple issued proceedings dated 11-10-2004 in Form-II under Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, giving the petitioners herein an option to purchase the land on payment of the cost of the land. The petitioners contend that they have expressed their willingness to purchase the land, but the respondents have not issued any proceedings in consequence of the Form II. Thus, the petitioners made representations to the respondents on 08-11-2004 and 04-04-2005.
5. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioners and their mother filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2398 of 2006, seeking a direction to the respondents to transfer the lands in favour of the petitioners. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 31-12-2024, observing as follows:
“9. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the lease\amount as fixed by the respondents in accordance with value of the land and submitted a representation to the respondents.
10. In view of such circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue directions to the respondents to pass appropriate order by taking into consideration of the recommendations made by the Executive Officer i.e 2nd respondent for sanction of lease in favour of the petitioners, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”
6. Pursuant to the above directions, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings. Challenging the same, the subject Writ Petition is filed. The writ petitioners have also filed a review application, seeking revie
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
